II    '   ■         ilJTTM 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

RIVERSIDE 


GIFT  OF 
Mrs.  Robert  C.  Cotton 


^.vj^^O.^-^^^^^^^ 


^*!5r<^f 


i9>^^ 


\d«lrtiA;.v;^i>l.Ulxv.«JL  ^ 


i.A^e<_ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/essayoncongressoOOIaddiala 


\b2.450'DlO 


Carnegie    Endowment   for    International   Peace 

DIVISION  OF  INTERNATIONAL  LAW 


AN    ESSAY 

ON  A 

CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS 

FOR  THE  ADJUSTMENT  OF  INTERNATIONAL  DISPUTES 
WITHOUT  RESORT  TO  ARMS 

BY 

WILLIAM  LADD 


Reprinted  from  the  original  edition  of  1840 
with  an  introduction 

by 
JAMES  BROWN  SCOTT 


NEW  YORK 
OXFORD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

AMERICAN  BRANCH:  S5  West  SSmd  Strkbt 

LONDON,  TORONTO,  MELBOURNE,  AND  BOMBAY 
HUMPHREY  MILFORD 

1916 


JAif^ 


3 


12 


0  9 


COPYRIGHT  1918 

BY  THE 

CARNEGIE  ENDOWMENT  FOR  INTERNATIONAL  PEACE. 
Washinqton,  D.  C. 


TNI  guilW   •  MMII   00.  MtM 

RAHWAT,   N.  i. 


INTRODUCTION 

OuE  distinguished  fellow  countryman,  Elihu  Burritt,  known  alike 
as  a  scholar  and  a  philanthropist,  summed  up  in  the  following  para- 
graph, written  in  1871,  the  claim  to  grateful  remembrance  of  his 
master  and  friend,  William  Ladd,  whom  he  delighted  to  call  the 
apostle  of  peace  and  whose  Essay  on  a  Congress  of  Nations  for  the 
Adjustment  of  International  Disputes  without  Resort  to  Arms, 
originally  published  in  184?0,  is  here  reproduced: 

When  we  consider  that  such  a  permanent  High  Court  of 
Nations  [advocated  by  Mr.  Ladd  in  the  Essay]  would  not  only 
be  the  noblest  and  loftiest  bar  that  could  be  established  on 
earth  for  the  appeal  and  settlement  of  all  serious  questions  of 
difficulty  between  them,  but  that  such  a  bar  would  be  a  bond 
of  confederation  to  them,  we  must  recognize  the  fullness  of 
Mr.  Ladd's  plan  for  abolishing  war,  and  establishing  permanent 
and  universal  peace.  He  gave  to  the  advocacy  and  develop- 
ment of  this  scheme  years  of  indefatigable  faith  and  effort. 
He  enlisted  a  large  number  of  writers  to  elaborate  it  with  their 
best  arguments  and  illustrations.  As  a  stimulus  to  these  efforts, 
the  American  Peace  Society  offered  $1,000  as  a  prize  for  the 
best  essay  on  the  subject.  A  considerable  number  were  pro- 
duced, and  submitted  to  such  a  jury  of  award  as  Wirt,  Webster, 
Story,  and  Marshall  could  form.  As  their  excellence  was  so 
good  and  even,  the  jury  could  not  desire  to  say  which  was  the 
best.  So,  six  of  them  were  published  in  a  large  volume  by  the 
Society,  including  one  written  by  Mr.  Ladd  himself,  which 
developed  the  scheme  more  completely  than  any  of  the  rest,  and 
which  to  this  day  is  accepted  as  its  best  exponent  and  argu- 
ment. This  was  the  largest  and  most  costly  volume  ever  pub- 
lished on  either  side  of  the  Atlantic  on  the  subject  of  peace. 
As  soon  as  it  left  the  press,  Mr.  Ladd  set  himself  to  the  work 
of  distributing  copies  to  the  crowned  heads  and  leading  men  of 
Christendom  with  all  the  glowing  zeal  and  activity  which  he 
brought  to  the  cause.  And  it  is  the  best  tribute  to  his  clear 
judicious  mind  that  the  main  proposition  as  he  developed  it 
has  been  pressed  upon  the  consideration  of  the  public  mind  of 

iii 


iv  INTRODUCTION 

Christendom  ever  since  his  day,  without  amendment,  addition, 
or  subtraction.  The  writer  of  these  introductory  notes,  who 
was  one  of  Mr.  Ladd's  disciples  and  successors,  felt  it  his  duty 
to  present  the  proposition,  pure  and  simple  as  his  master 
developed  it,  at  the  great  Peace  Congresses  at  Brussels,  Paris, 
Frankfort,  and  London;  and  to-day  it  stands  before  the  world, 
the  scheme  of  William  Ladd.* 

If  this  language  was  true,  as  it  undoubtedly  was,  thirty  years 
after  Mr.  Ladd's  death,  it  is  equally  true  at  the  present  day,  some 
forty-four  years  after  Mr.  Burritt's  tribute, and  seventy-four  years 
after  the  death  of  William  Ladd,  when  the  Congress  which  he  pro- 
posed, to  agree  upon  the  principles  of  international  law,  had  been 
called  in  1898  by  a  "  respectable  state,"  to  use  the  words  of  the 
Essay,  and  when  the  Court  of  Nations  which  he  advocated  was 
approved,  in  1907,  in  the  second  Conference  of  the  Nations,  likewise 
called  by  the  same  respectable  state,  and  when  the  Court  itself  can 
be  said  to  be  in  the  process  of  formation. 

The  career  of  a  man  whose  services  have  been  so  highly  rated,  but 
not  over-rated,  by  Mr.  Burritt,  and  whose  project  is  being  carried 
out  slowly  and  piecemeal  by  the  Hague  Conference,  whose  possibility 
he  foresaw  and  whose  labors  he  outlined,  deserves  to  be  recorded  and 
to  be  placed  before  persons  interested  in  international  organization. 
And  yet,  like  those  whose  lives  are  merged  in  their  ideals,  there  is  but 
little  to  relate.  Mr.  Ladd  was  born  in  Exeter,  New  Hampshire,  on 
the  10th  day  of  May,  1778.  He  fitted  for  college  at  the  academy 
of  his  native  town;  he  entered  Harvard  College  in  1793;  and  he 
graduated  with  the  class  of  1797.  He  followed  the  sea  for  a  number 
of  3'ears,  to  which  he  returned  after  a  philanthropic  but  not  alto- 
gether successful  experience  in  Florida,  but  left  it  permanently  upon 
the  outbreak  of  the  War  of  1812  with  Great  Britain.  In  1812  he 
settled  at  Minot  in  the  State  of  Maine  upon  a  farm  which  had 
belonged  to  his  father.  The  successful  management  of  his  modest 
inheritance,  to  which  he  added  from  time  to  time,  made  him  inde- 
pendent, indeed  wealthy,  and  he  was  therefore  able  to  devote  the 
leisure  of  the  winter  season,  and  to  give  very  considerable  sums  of 
money,  to  causes  of  a  philanthropic  nature  in  which  he  was  inter- 

•John  Hemmenway,  Memoir  of  WiUiam  Ladd,  1872,  introductory  notes, 
pp.  14-5. 


INTRODUCTION  y 

ested.    He  died   at   Portsmouth,   New   Hampshire,   on   April   "Tth, 
1841. 

In  his  early  years,  indeed  until  1819,  Mr.  Ladd  is  not  known  to 
have  taken  any  interest  in  peace  as  such,  and  his  connection  with  the 
movement  was  as  accidental  to  him  as  it  was  fortunate  to  the  cause 
of  peace.    His  own  account  is  as  follows : 

I  had  the  privilege  of  witnessing  some  of  the  last  hours  of 
the  Rev.  Jesse  Appleton,  D.D.,  President  of  Bowdoin  College. 
In  his  joyful  anticipations  of  the  growing  improvement  of  the 
world,  and  the  enumeration  of  the  benevolent  societies  of  the 
day,  he  gave  a  prominent  place  to  Peace  Societies;  and  this  was 
almost  the  first  time  I  ever  heard  of  them.  The  idea  then 
passed  over  my  mind  as  the  day-dream  of  benevolence;  and  so 
every  one  views  the  subject,  who  does  not  examine  it.  It  is 
probable  that  the  impressions  made  at  this  interview  first  turned 
my  attention  to  the  subject,  but  it  probably  would  soon  have 
escaped  from  me,  had  not  the  Solemn  Review  *,  which  came  soon 
after  into  my  possession,  in  a  very  singular  way,  riveted  my 
attention  in  such  a  manner  as  to  make  it  the  principal  object 
of  my  life  to  promote  the  cause  of  Peace  on  earth  and  good- 
will to  man.f 

Leaving  out  of  consideration  isolated  expressions  in  favor  of 
peace,  to  be  found  in  the  writings  of  Dr.  Franklin,  in  the  letters  and 
state  papers  of  Washington  as  private  citizen  and  as  President, 
and  the  negotiation  of  the  Jay  Treaty  of  1794,  which  called  attention 
to  arbitration  and  introduced  it  again  into  the  practice  of  nations, 
it  may  be  said  that  the  first  attempt  to  bring  the  friends  of  peace 
together  and  to  combine  their  efforts  in  a  movement  to  advance  the 
cause  of  peace  dates  from  1809,  in  which  year  Mr.  David  Low  Dodge, 
a  high-minded  and  successful  merchant  of  New  York  City,  pub- 
lished a  tract  entitled  The  Mediator's  Kingdom  not  of  this  World: 
hut  Spiritual,  in  which,  to  quote  his  own  words,  he  bore  "  public 
testimony  against  the  anti-Christian  custom  of  war."  Mr.  Dodge 
reports,  in  his  interesting  autobiography,  that  during  the  ensuing 
year  "  more  than  twenty  leading  members  of  evangelical  churches 

*A  Solemn  Review  of  the  Custom  of  War,  a  pamphlet  by  the  Rev.  Noah 
.Worcester,  D.D,,  published  by  the  American  Peace  Society  in  1814. 
f  Hemmenway,  op.  cit.,  p.  38. 


vi  INTRODUCTION 

appeared  fully  to  embrace  the  doctrine  of  peace  on  earth  and  good- 
will to  men,  repudiating  the  spirit  and  maxims  of  war."  * 
Two  or  three  years  later  he  wrote: 

By  this  time  the  friends  of  peace  in  New  York  had  so  much 
increased,  that  early  in  1812,  they  deliberated  on  the  expediency 
of  forming  a  peace  society,  wholly  confined  to  decided  evangeli- 
cal Christians,  with  a  view  to  diffuse  peace  principles  in  the 
churches,  avoiding  all  party  questions.  Our  object  was  not  to 
form  a  popular  society,  but  to  depend,  under  God,  upon  indi- 
vidual personal  effort,  by  conversation  and  circulating  essays 
on  the  subject;  .  .  . 

At  this  juncture,  there  was  much  political  excitement  and 
war  was  threatened  against  Great  Britain,  and  fearing  that 
our  motives  would  be  misapprehended  we  judged  it  not  wise  to 
form  a  peace  society  openly,  until  the  public  mind  was  more 
tranquil.  In  the  mean  time  we  resolved  to  be  active  individually 
in  diffusing  information  on  the  subject,  and  answering  the 
objections  of  our  friends.  I  was  appointed  to  prepare  an  essay 
on  the  subject,  stating  and  answering  objections.! 

The  result  was  the  preparation  and  publication,  in  1812,  of  an 
elaborate  tractate  entitled  War  Inconsistent  mth  the  Religion  of 
Jesus  Christ,t  which  expanded  and  modified  the  views  briefly  set 
forth  in  the  Mediator's  Kingdom,X  and  which  can  at  this  day  be 
taken  as  an  authoritative  exposition  of  the  views  of  those  who  believe 
that  defensive  as  well  as  offensive  war  is  inconsistent  with  the 
Christian  religion. 

A  further  quotation  from  the  autobiography  shows  not  only  Mr. 
Dodge's  interest  in  the  peace  movement  but  the  progress  it  was 
making.  "  The  friends  of  peace,"  he  said,  "  had  two  or  three  meet- 
ings relative  to  the  organization  of  a  society.  In  August,  1815, 
they  unanimously  formed  the  New  York  Peace  Society,  of  between 
thirty  and  forty  members,  probably  the  first  that  was  ever  formed 
in  the  world  for  that  specific  object."  Mr.  Dodge's  society,  the 
first  in  the  world  for  the  specific  object  of  promoting  peace,  was 
not  long  allowed  to  remain  in  undisturbed  possession  of  the  field 

•  Memorial  of  Mr.  David  L.  Dodge,  1854,  p.  90. 
t  Ibid.,  p.  95. 

X  In  1905  Mr.  Edwin  D.  Mead  published  Mr.  Dodge's  two  tractates  and  pre- 
fixed an  interesting  biographical  sketch  of  the  author. 


INTRODUCTION  vii 

which  it  was  the  first  to  enter.  Indeed,  in  the  same  year,  and  within 
the  course  of  the  next  few  years,  peace  societies  in  Europe  as  well 
as  in  the  United  States  "  were,"  to  quote  his  own  words,  "  formed, 
without  any  correspondence  or  knowledge  of  each  other,  the  provi- 
dence of  God  having  paved  the  way."  * 

It  has  been  thought  well  to  state  the  genesis  of  the  peace  move- 
ment in  the  language  of  its  founder,  because  Mr.  Dodge  can  fairly 
be  considered  as  such.  The  passages  from  his  autobiography  make 
it  clear  that  what  is  now  regarded  as  an  economic,  biological,  and 
juridical  as  well  as  a  religious  movement  began  as  a  protest  of  high- 
minded  and  deeply  religious  persons  against  war  as  inconsistent  with 
the  teachings  of  the  New  Testament. 

In  1815,  the  following  peace  societies  were  created  in  the  United 
States : 

The  New  York  Peace  Society,  the  first  of  its  kind,  organized,  as 
has  been  seen,  by  Mr.  Dodge  in  August;  the  Ohio  Peace  Society, 
founded  on  December  2;  the  Massachusetts  Society,  founded  on 
December  26,  by  the  Rev.  Noah  Worcester,  D.D.,  author  of  the 
tract  entitled  A  Solemn  Review  of  the  Custom  of  War  which  appears 
to  have  converted  Mr.  Ladd  to  the  ways  of  peace. 

In  the  interval  between  the  founding  of  these  societies  and  the 
creation  of  a  National  Association  in  1828,  peace  societies  were 
formed  in  at  least  the  following  States:  Pennsylvania,  Maine,  New 
Hampshire,  Vermont,  Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  Georgia,  and  North 
Carolina. 

As  Mr.  Ladd  said,  in  the  interesting  passage  which  has  already 
been  quoted,  the  cause  of  peace  became  the  principal  object  of  his 
life.  He  felt  the  necessity  of  gathering  the  various  peace  societies 
of  the  United  States  which  have  been  mentioned  into  a  larger  and 
national  organization  to  be  known  as  the  American  Peace  Society, 
which  he  succeeded  in  forming  in  May  1828,  with  the  aid  of  the 
indefatigable  Mr.  Dodge,  and  of  which  he  himself  was  the  executive 
officer  and  for  the  last  four  years  of  his  life  its  president.  In  the 
same  year  and  month  he  began  the  Harbinger  of  Peace,  which  ap- 
peared monthly  and  had  a  circulation  of  1,500  copies,+  as  the  organ 
of  the  movement,  and  continued  to  edit  it  for  three  years.  Its  name 
was  then  changed  to  the  Calumet.  In  1835  it  gave  way  to  the 
*  Ibid.,  p.  99.  /  f  Hemmenway,  op.  cit.,  p.  48. 


viii  INTRODUCTION 

American  Advocate  of  Peace,  which  in  turn  became,  in  1837,  the 
Advocate  of  Peace,  the  monthly  journal  which  is  now,  as  then,  the 
organ  of  the  American  Peace  Society. 

Mr.  Ladd  was  untiring  as  a  lecturer  and  writer  upon  his  chosen 
subject,  and  in  1840  he  published  the  Essay  on  a  Congress  of 
Nations,  which  is  his  abiding  title  to  fame.  In  this  remarkable 
essay,  which  will  later  be  briefly  analyzed,  he  advocated  a  Congress 
of  Nations  and  a  Court  of  Nations,  each  of  which  was  to  be  separate 
and  distinct,  as  diplomatic  and  judicial  functions  require,  as  he 
properly  said,  "  different,  not  to  say  opposite,  characters  in  the 
exercise  of  their  functions."    Thus,  he  said : 

I  consider  the  Congress  as  the  legislature,  and  the  Court  as 
the  judiciary,  in  the  government  of  nations,  leaving  the  func- 
'  tions  of  the  executive  with  public  opinion,  "  the  queen  of  the 
world."  This  division  I  have  never  seen  in  any  essay  or  plan 
for  a  congress  or  diet  of  independent  nations,  either  ancient  or 
modem ;  and  I  believe  it  will  obviate  all  the  objections  which 
have  been  heretofore  made  to  such  a  plan.* 

His  many  writings  prove  that  Mr.  Ladd  possessed  a  facile  pen 
and  his  style  may  fairly  be  judged  by  his  Essay  on  a  Congress  of 
Nations.  His  agitation  from  the  platform  shows  him  to  have  been 
a  ready  speaker,  interesting  alike  to  the  select  audiences  of  colleges 
and  universities,  and  to  the  simpler  minded  folk,  who  are,  it  is  be- 
lieved, a  severer  and  a  juster  judge. 

Hemmenway's  Memoir,  published  in  1872,  which  is  still  the  chief, 
indeed  the  only,  account  of  Mr.  Ladd's  life,  is  full  of  tributes  to 
his  ability  as  a  speaker  and  to  his  power  to  instruct,  to  interest,  and 
to  hold  an  audience.  He  was  licensed  to  preach  in  1837,  and  in  a 
letter  written  some  two  months  before  his  death  he  thus  describes 
an  experience  which  he  and  the  good  people  of  Geneva,  New  York, 
seem  to  have  enjoyed: 

I  went  to  Geneva,  and  preached  three  times  on  the  Sabbath, 
as  usual  to  large  and  attentive  audiences.  But  my  strength 
failed  me  in  the  last  sermon,  which  was  to  an  overflowing  audi- 
ence, and  I  was  obliged  to  request  the  minister  to  give  out  a 

•Advertisement,  post,  p.  L 


INTRODUCTION  ix 

hymn,  in  the  middle  of  the  sermon  which  was  an  hour  and  a  half 
long.* 

The  reasons  for  his  success  both  in  the  pulpit  and  upon  the  plat- 
form are  admirably  stated  in  the  following  letter,  written  by  Mr. 
John  S.  C.  Abbott  in  1870: 

A  little  over  forty  years  ago,  when  I  was  a  student  in  the 
Theological  Seminary  at  Andover,  Captain  Ladd  addressed  the 
young  divinity  students  there  upon  the  subject  of  peace.  As 
I  remember  him,  he  was  a  florid,  handsome  man,  looking  like 
the  bluff  Christian  sailor.  His  address  was  very  fervent  and 
convincing,  though  at  this  distance  of  time  I  cannot  recall  its 
details.  He  was  received  cordially  by  the  students.  His  argu- 
ments were  appreciated;  and  with  no  little  enthusiasm,  as  I 
remember,  a  peace  society  was  organized  in  the  seminary.  .  .  . 

Upon  one  other  occasion  I  met  him  some  years  after,  in  a 
social  circle,  in  Brunswick,  Maine.  He  was  the  life  of  the 
party,  full  of  fun  and  frolic.  I  was  told  that  his  natural  tem- 
perament was  of  the  most  joyous  kind.  He  played  with  the 
children  as  though  he  were  one  of  them.  Some  one  pleasantly 
remarked,  "  When  you  become  a  man,  you  should  put  away 
childish  things."  He  promptly  replied,  "  Ah,  I  fear  that  I 
shall  never  be  a  man.  I  can  never  be  anything  more  than  a 
Ladd."  t 

The  anecdote  related  by  Mr.  Abbott  indicates  a  sense  of  humor 
which  made  him  agreeable  and  persuasive  in  the  social  circle,  and 
an  interesting  statement  by  an  intimate  friend  shows  that  the  humor 
was  not  confined  to  his  friends  in  easy  and  familiar  intercourse,  but 
that  it  invaded,  to  his  friend's  regret,  the  pulpit  as  well.  Thus  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Cummings  solemnly  states  that  "  If  he  erred  at  all,  it  was 
by  an  excess  of  pleasantry';  or  more  truly  perhaps,  by  ill-timed 
pleasantry,  suffering  it  occasionally  to  break  out  amidst  the  solemn 
exercises  of  a  religious  meeting.  This  would  not  interfere  with  the 
edification  of  minds  constituted  like  his  own ;  but  all  cannot  make 
such  sudden  transitions."  % 

Charles  Sumner's  tribute  to  Mr.  Ladd,  in  his  War  System  of  the 
Commonwealth  of  Nations,  is  well  known,  and  need  not  be  quoted 

*  Hemmenway,  op.  cit,,  pp.  96-7.  f  Ibid.,  pp.  142-3. 

Jlbid.,  p.  129. 


X  INTRODUCTION 

in  full.     In  concluding  his  encomium,  Senator  Sumner  felt  justified 
in  saying: 

By  a  long  series  of  practical  labors,  and  especially  by  de- 
veloping, maturing,  and  publishing  the  plan  of  an  Interna- 
tional Congress,  has  William  Ladd  enrolled  himself  among  the 
benefactors  of  mankind.* 

In  a  later  portion  of  the  address,  Senator  Sumner  said: 

The  idea  of  a  Congress  of  Nations  with  a  High  Court  of 
Judicature  is  as  practicable  as  its  consummation  is  confessedly 
dear  to  the  friends  of  Universal  Peace.  Whenever  this  Con- 
gress is  convened,  as  surely  it  will  be,  I  know  not  all  the  names 
that  will  deserve  commemoration  in  its  earliest  proceedings ; 
but  there  are  two,  whose  particular  and  long-continued  advo- 

•  cacy  of  this  Institution  will  connect  them  indissolubly  with 
its  fame, — the  Abbe  Saint-Pierre,  of  France,  and  William 
Ladd,  of  the  United  States.* 

The  less  known  but  convincing  tribute  of  the  gentle  and  kindly 
Andrew  Preston  Peabody,  for  many  years  Plummer  Professor  of 
Christian  Morals  in  Harvard  University,  and  who  knew  him  well 
and  appreciated  his  labors,  may  fittingly  be  quoted  as  placing  the 
man  and  his  work  in  their  true  light.    Thus,  Dr.  Peabody  said: 

William  Ladd  seemed  to  live  only  for  his  race.  He  was  a 
peace-maker,  not  merely  by  profession  or  public  efforts,  but  in 
private  life.  He  was  not  one  of  those  who,  in  their  love  for 
the  race  as  a  whole,  forget  the  charity  due  the  individual.  But 
he  was  gentle,  forbearing,  and  conciliatory,  thoughtful  of  the 
rights  of  others,  always  earnest  to  mediate  between  those  at 
variance,  ready  to  make  sacrifice,  to  cherish  kind  feelings  among 
neighbors,  fellow-citizens,  and  fellow-Christians.  Few  men 
have  left  so  many  warm  friends  as  he;  and  we  doubt  whether 
he  has  left  an  enemy ;  sure  we  are  that  he  was  no  man's  enemy. 
The  angel  of  death  found  him  as  free  as  he  was  in  infancy  from 
malice  and  hatred. 

He  has  for  years  exerted  a  commanding  influence  over  the 
public  mind,  both  in  our  own  country  and  abroad.    When  he  com- 

•  Senator  Sumner's  address  was  delivered  before  the  American  Peace  Society 
May  28,  1849,  and  was  published  by  the  Society  in  1854.  The  above  passages 
are  quoted  from  The  Works  of  Charles  Sumner,  1871,  vol.  ii,  pp.  248,  264. 


INTRODUCTION  xi 

menced  his  labors  in  the  cause  of  peace,  he  stood  almost  alone. 
But  our  friend  hoped  against  hope,  and  toiled  on,  undaunted 
by  the  seeming  fruitlessness  of  his  efforts.  He  knew  that  he 
was  laboring  in  the  cause  of  God  and  of  man,  and  therefore 
not  in  vain.  He  has  left  many  able  and  faithful  fellow-workers ; 
but  the  most  of  them  derived  their  first  impulse  from  his  dis- 
courses or  publications ;  and  if  mankind  are  to  cease  from  war, 
if  our  country  is  to  take  the  lead  in  putting  away  violence 
between  nation  and  nation,  his  name  must  go  down  to  posterity 
as  essentially  connected  with  the  earliest  steps  of  this  Christian 
movement,  and  be  transmitted  for  the  lasting  gratitude  of  his 
race.* 


Statesmen,  clergymen,  philosophers,  jurists,  and  dreamers  of 
dreams,  without  a  calling  or  a  profession,  have,  from  time  to  time, 
urged  upon  an  unwilling  and  unappreciative  world  projects  of  inter- 
national confederation,  of  international  conferences,  and  of  inter- 
national tribunals,  and  it  seems  desirable,  before  considering  Mr. 
Ladd's  more  modest  proposal  for  a  Congress  of  Nations,  to  premise 
some  observations  upon  the  more  meritorious  or  better  known  of 
these,  which  have  attracted  attention  and  which  have  both  stimu- 
lated and  impressed  the  superior  minds  of  Europe  and  America. 
For  present  purposes,  it  seems  unnecessary  to  consider  projects 
which  were  drafted  before  the  Protestant  Reformation  shattered 
the  claim  of  Rome  even  to  spiritual  supremacy,  or  before  the  seven- 
teenth century  which,  rejecting  the  claims  of  the  Empire  to 
universal  dominion,  recognized  in  the  Congress  of  Westphalia 
of  1648  the  independence  of  states  irrespective  of  origin,  size 
or  religion,  thus  making  possible  both  the  society  and  the  law  of 
nations. 

Of  seventeenth  century  projects,  the  most  important  are  those 
of  Emeric  Cruce  (1623),  of  Grotius  (1625),  of  Sully  (1638),  and 
of  William  Penn  (1693);  and  of  the  eighteenth  century,  those  of 
the  Abbe  de  Saint-Pierre,  of  Jean  Jacques  Rousseau,  of  Jeremy 
Bentham  (1786-89),  and  of  Kant  (1795). 

The  first  to  be  considered  is  "  The  New  Cineas  or  Discourse  of 
the  Occasions  and  Means  to  establish  a  General  Peace,  and  the  Lib- 
erty of  Commerce  throughout  the  Whole  World,"  which  was  written 

*  Hemmenway,  op.  cit.,  pp.  130-1. 


xii  INTRODUCTION 

by  Emeric  Cruc6  and  published  in  1623.*  The  title  suggests 
the  existence  of  an  old  Cineas,  of  whom  Plutarch  has  something  to 
say  in  his  Lives  of  Illustrious  Men,  and  as  the  new  Cineas  was  to 
show  the  monarchs  of  his  day  the  path  of  wisdom  just  as  the  old 
Cineas  had  endeavored  to  lead  Pyrrhus,  famous  for  his  dubious 
victories,  into  the  ways  of  wisdom  and  peace,  it  seems  well  to  con- 
sider the  man  Cineas  and  the  nature  of  his  advice,  which,  unfortu- 
nately, was  not  taken  by  his  royal  master. 
Plutarch  says  of  him : 

This  person,  seeing  Pyrrhus  eagerly  preparing  for  Italy,  led 
him  one  day  when  he  was  at  leisure  into  the  following  reason- 
ings :  "  The  Romans,  sir,  are  reported  to  be  great  warriors 
and  conquerors  of  many  warlike  nations ;  if  God  permit  us  to 
overcome  them,  how  should  we  use  our  victory  ?  "  "  You  ask," 
'  said  Pyrrhus,  "  a  thing  evident  of  itself.  The  Romans  once 
conquered,  there  is  neither  Greek  nor  barbarian  city  that  will 
resist  us,  but  we  shall  presently  be  masters  of  all  Italy,  the 
extent  and  resources  and  strength  of  which  any  one  should 
rather  profess  to  be  ignorant  of,  than  yourself."  Cineas,  after 
a  little  pause,  "  And  having  subdued  Italy,  what  shall  we  do 
next  ?  "  Pyrrhus  not  yet  discovering  his  intention,  "  Sicily  ", 
he  replied,  "  next  holds  out  her  arms  to  receive  us,  a  wealthy 
and  populous  island,  and  easy  to  be  gained ;  for  since 
Agathocles  left  it,  only  faction  and  anarchy,  and  the  licentious 
violence  of  the  demagogues  prevail."  "  You  speak,"  said 
Cineas,  "  what  is  perfectly  probable,  but  will  the  possession  of 
Sicily  put  an  end  to  the  war?  "  "  God  grant  us,"  answered 
Pyrrhus,  "  victory  and  success  in  that,  and  we  will  use  these 
as  forerunners  of  greater  things ;  who  could  forbear  from  Libya 
and  Carthage  then  within  reach,  which  Agathocles,  even  when 
forced  to  fly  from  Syracuse,  and  passing  the  sea  only  with  a 
few  ships,  had  all  but  surprised?  These  conquests  once  per- 
fected, will  any  assert  that  of  the  enemies  who  now  pretend  to 
despise  us,  any  one  will  dare  to  make  further  resistance? " 
"  None,"  replied  Cineas,  "  for  then  it  is  manifest  we  may  with 
such  mighty  forces  regain  Macedon,  and  make  an  absolute  con- 
quest of  Greece ;  and  when  all  these  are  in  our  power,  what  shall 

•  Emeric  Crue^,  Le  youveau  Cyn4e  on  Disoours  d'Estat  reprisentant  lea 
occasions  et  Moyens  d'estnblier  une  Paiw  g^6rale,  et  la  liberty  du  commerce  par 
tout  le  Monde.  In  1909  Mr.  Thomas  Willing  Balch  published  a  sumptuous 
edition  of  the  French  text  and  an  English  translation  of  this  remarkable  work. 
References  are  to  the  Balch  ed. 


INTRODUCTION  xiii 

we  do  then?  "  Said  Pyrrhus,  smiling,  "  We  will  live  at  our  ease, 
my  dear  friend,  and  drink  all  day,  and  divert  ourselves  with 
pleasant  conversation."  When  Cineas  had  led  Pyrrhus  with 
his  argument  to  this  point :  "  And  what  hinders  us  now,  sir, 
if  we  have  a  mind  to  be  merry,  and  entertain  one  another,  since 
we  have  at  hand  without  trouble  all  those  necessary  things,  to 
which  through  much  blood  and  great  labor,  and  infinite  hazards 
and  mischief  done  to  ourselves  and  to  others,  we  design  at  last 
to  arrive  ?  "  * 

The  meaning  of  the  title  of  Cruce's  book  is  thus  evident,  and  the 
advice  of  the  new  fared  no  better  than  the  advice  of  the  old  Cineas. 
The  proposal  contained  in  this  remarkable  book,  which  had  be- 
come so  rare  as  almost  to  have  disappeared,  was  that  of  a  union  of 
the  nations  and  the  settlement  of  their  disputes  in  a  general  confer- 
ence of  their  ambassadors,  with  the  use  of  force  if  necessary  to  secure 
compliance.  Although  a  Frenchman,!  Cruce  was  disinterested,  in 
the  sense  that  he  sought  no  special  advantages  for  his  country,  his 
hope  was  to  bring  about  and  to  maintain  peace  without  aggrandiz- 
ing France  and  his  subject  thus  differed,  as  will  be  seen,  in  form  as 
well  as  in  substance,  from  the  Great  Design  attributed  to  Henry  IV, 
which,  if  realized,  would  have  transferred  the  Austrian  scepter  to 
French  hands.  Cruce's  desire  was  to  secure  the  establishment  of 
universal  peace,  and  for  this  purpose  he  advocated  "  before  resort- 
ing to  arms,  resort  to  the  arbitration  of  the  sovereign  potentates 
and  lords,"  t  apparently  in  an  assembly  composed  of  ambassadors, 
in  a  city  chosen  for  this  purpose — Venice  was  suggested — "  where," 
to  quote  his  language,  "  all  sovereigns  should  have  perpetually  their 
ambassadors,  in  order  that  the  differences  that  might  arise  should  be 
settled  by  the  judgment  of  the  whole  assembly.  The  ambassadors 
of  those  who  would  be  interested  would  plead  there  the  grievances 
of  their  masters  and  the  other  deputies  would  judge  them  without 

*  A.  H.  Clough's  translation  of  Plutarch's  Lives  of  Illustrious  Men,  1881, 
vol.  2,  pp.  73-4. 

f  Why  should  I  a  Frenchman  wish  harm  to  an  Englishman,  a  Spaniard,  or 
an  Hindoo?  I  cannot  wish  it  when  I  consider  that  they  are  men  like  me,  that 
I  am  subject  like  them  to  error  and  sin  and  that  all  nations  are  bound  together 
by  a  natural  and,  consequently,  indestructible  tie,  which  ensures  that  a  man 
cannot  consider  another  a  stranger  unless  he  follows  the  common  and  inveterate 
opinion  that  he  has  received  from  his  predecessors.    Cruc6,  loc.  cit.,  p.  84. 

Jlbid.,  p.  40. 


xiv  INTRODUCTION 

prejudice.  .  .  .  And  the  better  to  authorize  it,  all  the  said  princes 
will  swear  to  hold  as  inviolable  law  what  would  be  ordained  by  the 
majority  of  votes  in  the  said  assembly,  and  to  pursue  with  arms 
those  who  would  wish  to  oppose  it."  * 

Two  years  after  the  appearance  of  the  Nouveau  CyrUe,  Grotius 
published  the  first  systematic  treatise  on  international  law,  entitled 
De  Jure  BeUi  ac  Pacts,  in  which  he  said,  influenced  it  may  be,  as 
Professor  Nys  says,t  by  Cruc^'s  book: 

It  would  be  useful,  and  indeed,  it  is  almost  necessary,  that 
certain  Congresses  of  Christian  Powers  should  be  held,  in  which 
the  controversies  which  arise  among  some  of  them  may  be  de- 
cided by  others  who  are  not  interested;  and  in  which  measures 
may  be  taken  to  compel  the  parties  to  accept  peace  on  equitable 
terms.t 

The  plan  of  Grotius  was  not  as  with  Cruce  a  union  of  states  and 
a  perpetual  conference,  but  periodical  conferences  of  independent 
and  equal  states,  in  which  their  disputes  not  otherwise  settled  were 
to  be  adjusted  by  diplomatic  negotiations,  such  as  happened  in  the 
Congress  of  Westphalia  (1648),  and  in  the  Congress  of  Vienna 
(1814-15). 

It  is  usual  to  begin  the  consideration  of  projects  of  the  seventeenth 
century  with  the  Great  Design,  composed  by  Sully  but  cunningly 
attributed  to  Henry  IV;  and  it  is  eminently  proper  to  do  so,  because 
the  so-called  Design  of  Henry  IV  is  without  question  the  most 
famous  of  the  many  projects  advocating  a  federation  of  states  in 
order  to  secure  and  to  maintain  peace  between  nations.  The  project 
is  in  very  truth  the  classical  project  of  international  organization, 
and  it  has  been  both  the  inspiration  and  the  foundation  upon  which 

•Cruc4,  loc.  cit.,  pp.   102,  122. 

t  In  speaking  of  the  passage  of  Grotius  quoted  above,  the  eminent  Belgian 
publicist.  Professor  Ernest  Nys,  says:  "We  do  not  know  what  contemporary 
writers  thought  of  the  humanitarian  theories  of  the  A'ourcau  Cynie;  it  seems, 
however,  that  it  exerted  some  influence.  How  are  we,  indeed,  to  explain  that 
passage,  not  sufficiently  illuminated,  where  Grotius,  in  his  treatise  upon  The 
Laves  of  War  and  Peace,  published  two  years  after  the  Tiouveau  Cyn^e,  extols 
the  union  and  the  congresses  of  sovereigns?  "  Ernest  Nys,  Etudes  de  droit  inter- 
national ct  de  droit  politique,  1896,  p.  316. 

t Grotius:  De  Jure  Belli  ac  Pads,  Whewell's  translation,  vol.  ii,  Chap, 
xxiii.  Sec.  8,  Art  4,  p.  406. 


INTRODUCTION  xv 

well-wishers  of  their  kind  have,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  raised 
their  humbler  structures.  The  name  of  Henry  IV  is  a  name  to  con- 
jure with,  and  his  death  at  the  hands  of  a  fanatic,  at  the  very 
moment  when,  as  his  friend  and  associate  Sully  asserts,  he  was  put- 
ting himself  at  the  head  of  his  army  to  carry  into  effect  the  Great 
Design,  has  made  it  appear  almost  as  the  political  testament  of  the 
great  monarch. 

A  plan  which  Henry  conceived  could  not  be,  and  in  fact  has  not 
been,  lightly  rejected,  and  the  fact  that  it  was,  if  Sully  is  to  be 
trusted,  upon  the  point  of  execution  has  impressed  men  so  widely 
differing  as  Rousseau  and  Napoleon — to  mention  but  two — with  the 
possibility  of  its  realization.  Royalty  runs  better  than  common- 
folks,  a  fact  which  Sully  well  knew,  and  in  ascribing  it  to  his  royal 
master  he  prepared  the  minds  of  men  for  its  acceptance.  Still,  it  is 
not  disrespectful  to  the  memory  of  Henry  IV  to  suggest  that  a  plan 
fathered  by  a  statesman  such  as  Sully  would  be  in  itself  sufficient 
to  commend  it  to  thoughtful  consideration. 

But  in  ascribing  it  to  Henry  IV  it  is  fair  to  presume  that  Sully 
acted  from  no  unworthy  motives.  Europe  was  in  a  state  of  expect- 
ancy at  the  death  of  Henry,  and  Sully  sought  to  glorify  his  friend 
by  having  him  fall  upon  the  eve  of  the  realization  of  great  and 
beneficent  plans,  which,  in  Sully's  opinion  and  in  the  opinion  of  his 
generation,  would  have  immortalized  the  king  had  he  been  able  to 
realize  them.  The  important  thing  to  be  considered  is  not  so  much 
that  the  plan  was  not  the  plan  of  Henry,  but  that  it  ascribed  to 
Henry  views  which  were  agitating  the  public  mind  and  which  had 
been  voiced  by  the  New  Cineas  of  Cruce,  which  appears  to  have 
served  as  Sully's  model. 

But,  before  considering  these  two  interesting  and  important  ques- 
tions, which,  after  all,  are  minor  matters,  it  is  advisable  to  state  the 
purpose  of  the  Great  Design  and  in  more  detail  the  means  by  which 
it  was  to  be  realized.  The  Great  Design,  as  sketched  by  Sully,  con- 
templated the  formation  of  a  Christian  republic,  to  be  composed  of 
fifteen  states,  with  a  general  council  or  senate  of  approximately 
seventy  persons  representing  the  states  of  Europe,  to  deliberate 
on  affairs  as  they  arose,  to  occupy  themselves  with  discussing  dif- 
ferent interests,  to  pacify  quarrels,  to  throw  light  upon  and  oversee 
the  civil,  political,  and  religious  aflPairs  of  Europe,  whether  internal 


xvi  INTRODUCTION 

or  foreign,  whose  decisions  should  have  the  force  of  irrevocable  and 
unchangeable  decrees,  as  being  considered  to  emanate  from  the 
united  authority  of  all  the  sovereigns,  pronouncing  as  freely 
as  absolutely.*  The  object  was  "  to  divide  Europe  equally  among 
a  certain  number  of  powers,  in  such  manner  that  none  of  them 
might  have  cause  either  of  envy  or  fear  from  the  possessions  or 
power  of  the  others,"  t  which  object,  if  accomplished,  would  result 
in  the  interest,  it  was  alleged,  of  universal  peace.  The  political 
part  of  the  program  was,  to  quote  Sully's  own  words,  "  to  divest 
the  House  of  Austria  of  the  Empire,  and  of  all  the  possessions  in 
Germany,  Italy,  and  the  Low  Countries."  %  That  is  to  say,  the  Great 
Design  proposed  to  humble  the  pride  and  power  of  Austria  by  force, 
and  the  federation  of  Europe,  produced  by  force,  was  to  be  main- 
tained by  the  sword.  As  Pfister  has  unquestionably  made  the  most 
careful  examination  ever  made,  both  of  the  manuscripts  as  well  as 
of  the  printed  editions  of  the  Economies  Royales  of  Sully,  it  seems 
advisable  to  state  in  his  words  the  brief  yet  adequate  summary  which 
he  has  made  of  the  Great  Design: 

Henceforth,  [he  says]  it  [Europe]  is  divided  into  fifteen 
dominions,  some  of  which  are  hereditary  (France,  Spain,  Great 
Britain,  Denmark,  Sweden  and  Lombardy);  others  are  elective, 
(the  Papacy,  the  Empire,  Poland,  Hungary  and  Bohemia)  ; 
lastly  the  republics  (Venice,  Switzerland,  the  Italian  republics, 
the  Republic  of  the  Belgians).  These  fifteen  states  are  reduced 
to  an  approximate  equality  of  territory,  of  wealth,  of  power,  and 
they  form  a  perfect  equilibrium.  The  same  equilibrium  exists 
with  regard  to  the  three  religions:  Catholic,  Lutheran,  and 
Calvinistic.  Of  these  fifteen  states,  five  are  wholly  Catholic 
(Sully  does  not  name  them),  five  are  entirely  Lutheran,  and 
five  Calvinistic.**     These  states  are  to  form  among  themselves 

•  See  The  Great  Design  of  Henry  IV,  ed.  by  Edwin  D.  Mead,  1909,  pp.  34, 
et  seq. 

t  Ibid.,  p.  33. 

t  Ibid.,  p.  25. 

••  Such  is,  indeed,  the  thought  of  Sully,  if  not  exactly  his  language.  With 
regard  to  the  territories  of  the  church,  he  states  that  neither  Calvinists  nor 
Lutherans  shall  be  persecuted  either  in  person  or  in  property,  but  that  they  shall 
be  "only  enjoined  to  leave  the  country  and  to  take  with  them  their  property 
within  a  year  and  a  day  after  being  so  ordered,  or  in  default  thereof  to  accept 
the  religion  of  the  country."  Michaud,  ii,  349.  Sully  immediately  follows 
this  up  by  adding:  "A  similar  course  shall  likewise  be  observed  with  regard  to 


INTRODUCTION  xvii 

a  confederation,  administered  by  six  Provincial  Councils  and 
by  one  General  Council.  The  General  Council  is  to  settle  dis- 
putes between  the  sovereign  and  his  subjects  (henceforth  there 
will  be  no  more  revolutions!),  and  disputes  between  the  states 
(hence  no  more  wars  in  Christian  Europe!).  The  united  efforts 
of  the  confederation  have  but  a  single  object;  namely,  to  expel 
the  Turks  from  Europe.  The  General  Council  is  to  fix  the 
quota  of  troops  and  the  taxes  which  each  of  the  fifteen  powers 
is  to  furnish  for  this  new  crusade.  It  is  to  levy  troops  and  to 
raise  money;  to  direct  the  military  operations,  and  to  appor- 
tion the  conquests.  When  the  Turk  is  expelled,  Europe  will  at 
last  enjoy  this  great  and  inestimable  benefit:  Universal  peace.* 

Pfister  has  shown  the  genesis  and  the  growth  of  the  Great  Design 
by  a  careful  and  detailed  study  of  the  Economies  Royales  in  com- 
parison with  the  printed  edition  thereof,  and  he  thus  sums  up  his 
conclusions,  after  stating  that  the  passages  concerning  the  Great 
Design  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  original  manuscript  but  that  they 
were  added  from  time  to  time  until  they  assumed  final  form  in  the 
printed  edition  of  1638: 

The  clean-cut  policy  followed  by  Henry  IV,  aiming  at  the 
reduction  of  the  House  of  Austria  was,  if  I  may  dare  to  say  so, 
the  actual  foundation  of  all  these  combinations.  By  a  first 
exaggeration,  Sully  maintained  that  his  master  desired  to  strip 
Austria  of  its  possessions  in  Germany,  in  Bohemia,  and  in  Hun- 
gary, and  to  reduce  Spain  to  the  territory  of  the  Spanish 
Peninsula  (the  version  of  the  manuscript  of  the  Economies 
Royales).  Then  he  recasts  the  map  of  Europe  and  assigns 
to  one  or  the  other  of  the  states  the  provinces  taken  from  the 
Spanish  faction.  Obsessed  by  these  hallucinations,  he  com- 
poses a  Christian  Europe  of  fifteen  absolutely  equal  powers,  and 
completely  carried  away  by  his  fantasies,  he  finally  dreams  that 

the  kingdoms  of  France,  of  the  realms  of  Spain,  and  of  Great  Britain,  of  Denmark 
and  of  Sweden,  in  which  countries  only  those  forms  of  the  three  religions,  to  the 
exclusion  of  others,  may  be  professed  which  are  at  present  permitted  within 
them,  and  they  shall  be  dealt  with  as  hereinbefore  stated."  Saint-Simon  had 
given  the  same  interpretation  of  this  passage,  and  he  put  the  question :  "  How 
could  a  pope  confirm  the  existence,  the  duration,  and  firmly  establish  and  protect 
the  heresies  of  Calvin  and  of  Luther  so  that  each  of  the  heresies  constitute  a  third 
of  the  religious  unity  and  stand  on  an  equality  with  the  Catholic  Religion  ? " 
ParalUle  des  trois  premiers  rois  Bourbons,  Faugfere's  ed.,  pp.  138-9. 

*  Charles  Pfister,  Les  "  Economies  Royales "  de  Sully  et  le  Qrand  Dessein 
de  Henri  IV  {Revue  Historique,  1894,  vol.  56,  pp.  316-7). 


xviii  INTRODUCTION 

universal  peace  might  reign  upon  this  earth.  The  Great  Project 
was  therefore  not  conceived  by  him  at  one  and  the  same  time, 
but  was  formed,  as  it  were,  of  successive  layers  reared  one  upon 
the  other.* 

We  are  now  in  a  position  to  state  the  relation  between  the  New 
Cineas  of  Cruce  and  the  so-called  Great  Design  of  Henry  /F,  and  it 
appears  that  just  as  the  old  Cineas  advised  Pyrrhus  to  rejoice  his 
soul  in  peace  after  his  conquests,  so  did  Sully,  taking  a  leaf  from 
Cruce's  book,  essay  the  role  of  the  new  Cineas  to  his  royal  master, 
Henry  IV.  This  is  the  conclusion  reached  by  Pfister  after  a 
careful  examination  of  the  tractate  of  Cruc^  and  of  the  Great 
Design  of  Sully.  To  quote  Pfister's  own  language,  "  Sully 
shared  the  ideas  of  his  time,  and  it  was  natural  that  after  hav- 
ing attributed  to  Henry  IV  great  designs  which  the  latter  never 
hlid,  he  carried  the  exaggeration  a  step  further  by  crediting  the 
king  with  the  project  of  maintaining  peace  and  creating  a  council 
to  adjudge  all  differences.  This  last  conception  does  not  appear 
to  us  to  be  even  original.  Sully  took  it,  it  would  seem,  from  a  very 
curious  book  of  the  epoch,  Le  Cynee  d'Estat^  written  by  Emeric 
Lacroix,  an  author  who  should  not  be  forgotten.  .  .  .  Sully  did  not 
go  so  far  as  Emeric  Lacroix.  He  only  wished  peace  among  Christian 
princes,  and  he  even  excluded  the  Czar  from  his  confederation  be- 
cause a  great  part  of  his  dominions  belonged  to  Asia  and  was  com- 
posed of  savage,  barbarian,  and  ferocious  nations.  But  he  demanded 
a  general  council  for  his  very  Christian  association  as  Lacroix  did  for 
the  entire  world.  Sully  did  not  even  seek  peace  for  the  Turks.  He 
hurled  against  them  the  united  Christian  world  and  expelled  them 
from  Europe  by  new  crusades ;  and  here  again  Sully  was  of  his  day 
and  generation,  while  Lacroix  looked  far  beyond  it."  t 

It  may  seem  strange,  but  it  is  nevertheless  a  fact  that  this  project 
which  contemplated  an  armed  alliance  to  humble  the  House  of 
Austria,  to  rearrange  the  map  of  Europe,  and  to  maintain  by  force 
the  status  created  by  force,  should  have  been  considered  a  peace 
plan,  and  that  it  should  be  not  only  referred  to  as  such,  but  have 
been  taken  as  the  model  of  other  plans  really  pacific  and  disin- 
terested. 

•Pfistfir,  Les  "Economies  Royales,"  etc.   (Revue  Historique,  1894,  vol.  56, 
p.  318).  fl^id-,  pp.  330-1. 


INTRODUCTION  xix 

The  influence  of  the  Great  Design  upon  subsequent  thought  has 
been  such  as  to  justify  this  somewhat  detailed  account  of  its  origin 
and  of  its  authorship.  William  Penn  refers  to  it  as  justifying  his 
scheme,  saying: 

I  will  not  then  fear  to  be  censured  for  proposing  an  expedient 
for  the  present  and  future  peace  of  Europe,  when  it  was  not 
only  the  design  but  glory  of  one  of  the  greatest  princes  that 
ever  reigned  in  it. 

The  Abbe  de  Saint-Pierre  specifically  calls  his  project  "  The  Abridg- 
ment of  the  Project  of  Universal  Peace  invented  by  King  Henry  the 
Great." 

After  showing  the  influence  of  the  Great  Design,  Pfister  says 
that  the  ideas  of  the  Abbe  de  Saint-Pierre,  which  were  admittedly 
based  upon  the  Great  Design,  were  in  1795  "  taken  up  again,  ar- 
ranged and  formulated  by  the  greatest  of  modern  philosophers," 
adding  "  Is  it  not  curious  that,  indirectly,  the  Economies  Royales 
of  Sully  exercised  an  important  influence  upon  the  ethical  system  of 
Immanuel  Kant."  *  It  is  indeed  curious,  but  greatest  and  stran- 
gest of  all  is  the  influence  which  the  Great  Design  apparently 
exercised  upon  the  great  Napoleon.  Thus  Count  de  Las  Cases,  in  his 
"Memorial  of  St.  Helena,"  quotes  the  Emperor  as  saying: 

One  of  my  greatest  ideas  was  the  bringing  together  and  the 
concentration  of  the  peoples  forming  a  geographical  unit  which 
revolution  and  policy  had  broken  up  and  cut  to  pieces.  Thus, 
though  scattered,  there  are  in  Europe  more  than  30,000,000 
Frenchmen,  15,000,000  Spaniards,  15,000,000  Italians, 
30,000,000  Germans,  and  of  each  of  these  peoples  I  would  fain 
have  made  a  separate  and  distinct  nation.  .  .  . 

After  this  summary  simplification,  it  would  have  been  easier 
to  give  one's  self  up  to  the  beautiful  dream  of  civilization ;  for 
in  such  a  state  of  things  there  would  have  been  a  greater  chance 
of  bringing  about  everywhere  a  unity  of  codes,  of  principles,  of 
opinions,  of  sentiments,  of  views,  and  of  interests.  Then,  per- 
haps, under  the  aegis  of  universal  enlightenment,  it  would  have 
been  possible  to  conceive  of  an  Amphictyonic  assembly  of  Greece, 
or  of  an  American  Congress  for  the  European  family  of  nations. t 

♦  Ibid.,  p.  334. 

f  Las  Cases'  Memorial  de  8ainte-H4Une,  1823,  vol,  4,  pt.  7,  pp.  125-6. 


XX  INTRODUCTION 

Upon  this  passage,  summarized,  but  not  quoted,  in  his  masterly 
Confederation  of  Europe,  Mr.  Phillips  says :  "  Whether  this  plan 
had  ever  been  seriously  contemplated  or  not,  it  is  easy  to  recognize 
in  it  the  source  of  its  inspiration."  • 

In  1693  the  gentle  Penn  published  an  Essay  totcards  the  Present 
and  Future  Peace  of  Europe,  proposing  the  establishment  of  a 
European  diet,  parliament,  or  estates,  moved  thereto,  as  he  says, 
by  the  project  of  Henry  IV.  The  sovereign  princes  of  Europe  were 
to  be  represented  in  the  diet,  according  to  their  revenues,  not 
upon  the  plane  of  equality.  The  diet  itself  was  to  meet  yearly, 
or  every  second  or  third  year.  The  diet,  or  assembly,  was  to  be 
called  the  sovereign,  or  imperial,  diet,  parliament,  or  estate  of 
Europe,  "  before  which  sovereign  assembly,  should  be  brought  all 
differences  depending  between  one  sovereign  and  another,  that  can- 
not be  made  up  by  private  embassies,  before  the  sessions  begin."  f 

It  occurred  to  the  generous  author  that  the  sovereign  Princes 
might  prefer  to  settle  their  disputes  by  arms  instead  of  submitting 
them  to  the  diet,  or  that,  if  submitted,  they  might  fail  to  execute 
the  judgments  of  the  assembly.  To  meet  these  various  contingencies, 
he  therefore  provided  that,  "  if  any  of  the  Sovereignties  that  consti- 
tute these  imperial  States,  shall  refuse  to  submit  their  claim  or  pre- 
tensions to  them,  or  to  abide  and  perform  the  judgment  thereof,  and 
seek  their  remedy  by  arms,  or  delay  their  compliance  beyond  the 
time  prefixed  in  their  resolutions,  all  the  other  Sovereignties,  united 
as  one  strength,  shall  compel  the  submission  and  performance  of  the 
sentence,  with  damages  to  the  suffering  party,  and  charges  to  the 
Sovereignties  that  obligated  their  submission."  t 

It  would  seem  that  the  Congress  of  Nations  contemplated  by  Penn 
was  to  settle  by  diplomats,  not  necessarily  by  judges  trained  in  the 
law,  disputes  of  all  kinds  whatsoever,  whether  they  were  justiciable  or 
non-justiciable.  A  distinction  does  not  seem  to  be  drawn  between 
these  two  categories,  so  that  diplomats  would  or  might  pass  upon  and 
determine  each.    But  however  highly  we  may  appreciate  the  diplomat 

•Walter  Alison  Phillips'  The  Confederation  of  Europe:  A  Study  of  the 
European  Alliance,  18131823,  as  an  Experiment  in  the  International  Organiza- 
tion of  Peace,  1914,  p.  20. 

t  William  Penn,  An  Eaaay  totoards  the  Present  and  Future  Peace  of  Europe, 
sec.  iv. 


INTRODUCTION  xxi 

in  his  proper  sphere,  the  wisdom  of  mankind  has  established  courts  of 
justice  for  the  settlement  of  justiciable  questions.  A  further  objection 
to  Penn's  project  is  the  unequal  representation  of  the  states,  for  equal- 
ity before  the  law  is  as  true  of  nations  as  of  individuals.  Finally,  the 
project  seems  to  contain  within  it  the  germs  of  a  league  to  enforce 
peace  and  of  an  international  police  which  would  make  it  objection- 
able to  those  who  believe  in  public  opinion  as  a  sanction  of  law, 
whereas  the  provision  for  the  use  of  force  will  commend  it  to  those 
who  believe  in  force  as  the  sanction  of  law. 

The  chief  projects  of  the  eighteenth  century  are,  as  has  been 
said,  those  of  the  Abbe  de  Saint-Pierre,  Jean  Jacques  Rousseau, 
Jeremy  Bentham,  and  Immanuel  Kant. 

The  purpose  of  the  Abbe  de  Saint-Pierre  is  indicated  in  the  title. 
Perpetual  Peace,  which  he  gave  to  the  various  editions  of  his  project. 
In  the  year  1712  he  published  anonymously,  at  Cologne,  a  volume 
small  enough  to  be  slipped  in  the  pocket,  but  weighty  in  thought  and 
purpose,  entitled  "  Memoirs  to  Render  Peace  Perpetual  in  Europe." 
This  is  in  the  nature  of  an  essay  or  of  a  first  sketch.  In  the  two- 
volume  edition  of  his  treatise,  published  in  1713,  he  states  the  rela- 
tion of  his  project  to  that  of  Henry  IV,  and  in  the  third  volume, 
which  appeared  in  1717,  this  relation  appears  in  the  title.  He  in- 
forms us  in  the  preface  to  the  first  volume  of  the  enlarged  edition  that 
a  friend,  to  whom  he  had  shown  the  first  sketch,  informed  him  that 
"  Henry  IV  had  formed  a  project  similar  in  substance.  In  the 
Memoirs  of  the  Duke  of  Sully,  his  Prime  Minister,  and  in  the  history 
of  his  reign  by  Mr.  de  Perefixe,  I  even  found  that  this  project  had 
already  been  agreed  to  and  approved  by  a  large  number  of  sovereigns 
at  the  commencement  of  the  past  century."  * 

The  title  to  the  third  volume,  which  appeared  in  1717,  not  only 
points  out  the  relationship,  but  mentions  the  success  with  which,  as 
Sully  would  have  us  believe,  the  Great  Design  of  Henry  IV  had  been 
crowned.  The  first  sentence  of  the  title  thus  defines  the  good  Abbe's 
purpose:  "Project  of  a  treaty  to  render  peace  perpetual  between 
Christian  sovereigns  and  to  maintain  constantly  free  commerce  be- 
tween the  nations  to  strengthen  in  greater  degree  the  sovereign 
houses  upon  the  throne."    The  second  part  of  the  title  is  evidently 

*Abb6  de  Saint-Pierre's  Projet  pour  rendre  la  Paix  perp^tuelle  en  Europe 
(1713),  vol.  1,  p.  ix. 


xxii  INTRODUCTION 

to  convince  the  reader  by  the  mere  title  page  of  the  feasibility  of  the 
scheme,  as  he  declares  it  to  have  been  "  proposed  formally  by  Henry, 
the  great  king  of  France,  agreed  to  by  Queen  Elizabeth,  by  James 
I,  King  of  England,  her  successor,  and  by  most  of  the  other  poten- 
tates of  Europe." 

Just  as  Sully  had  obtained  a  hearing  for  the  Great  Design,  by 
ascribing  it  to  Henry  IV,  so  Saint-Pierre  obtained  a  hearing  for  his 
Project  of  Perpetual  Peace  by  declaring  it  to  be  substantially  the 
Great  Design  of  Henry  IV.  In  1728  Saint-Pierre  published  an 
abridgment  of  the  project,  which  the  title  declares  to  have  been 
"  invented  by  King  Henry  the  Great,  approved  by  Queen  Elizabeth, 
by  King  James,  her  successor,  by  the  republics,  and  divers  other 
potentates,  adapted  to  the  present  state  of  affairs  in  Europe." 

.Without  attempting  in  this  place  a  comparison  between  the  Great 
Design  and  Saint-Pierre's  Perpetual  Peace,  the  purpose  of  the  first 
was  to  create  by  force  of  arms  a  new  state  of  affairs  in  Europe,  and 
to  maintain,  by  force  if  necessary,  the  equilibrium  thus  brought 
about  by  force.  The  Abbe  de  Saint-Pierre  believed  that  it  was  not 
necessary  to  make  Europe  over  by  force,  but  to  procure,  by  force  if 
necessary,  the  acceptance  of  the  status  created  by  the  Treaty  of 
Westphalia  of  1648  and  of  Utrecht  of  1713-14,  in  the  conclusion 
of  which  he  was  interested  as  secretary  to  the  French  plenipoten- 
tiary. In  simplest  terms,  the  Abbe's  project  was  to  maintain  the 
status  quo,  which  could,  in  his  opinion,  be  done  by  a  treaty  of  alli- 
ance, consisting  of  twelve  fundamental  provisions  which  he  stated  in 
the  form  of  a  treaty,  and  which  in  his  opinion  only  needed  signature 
in  order  to  be  effective.  Peace  was  thus  to  be  ushered  in  by  a  stroke 
of  the  pen. 

The  project  of  the  Abbe  de  Saint-Pierre  was,  as  has  been  stated, 
based  upon  the  Great  Design  of  Henry  IV  and  contemplated  a  union, 
if  possible,  of  all  Christian  sovereigns,  with  a  perpetual  congress  or 
senate  in  which  the  sovereigns  should  be  represented  by  deputies. 
The  union  was,  in  the  first  instance,  to  be  voluntary,  but  after  enough 
states  had  joined  it  to  make  fourteen  votes,  a  sovereign  refusing  to 
enter  was  to  be  declared  an  enemy  to  the  repose  of  Europe,  and  force 
was  to  be  used  against  him  until  he  adhered  to  it  or  until  he  was 
entirely  despoiled  of  his  territories.  The  organ  of  the  union,  called 
the  Senate,  was  to  consist  of  some  four  and  twenty  members,  and 


INTRODUCTION  xxiii 

before  this  body  complaints  of  the  sovereign  members  of  the  union 
were  to  be  laid.  The  dispute  was  to  be  decided  by  the  senate  pro- 
visionally by  a  majority,  finally  by  three-fourths  of  the  members, 
and  the  failure  of  a  sovereign  or  members  of  the  union  to  accept 
the  decision  required  the  European  society  or  union  to  declare  war 
against  the  recalcitrant  member  and  to  continue  it  until  he  was  dis- 
armed, the  judgment  executed,  the  costs  of  the  war  paid  by  him,  and 
the  country  conquered  from  him  forever  separated  from  his  do- 
minions. The  purpose  which  Saint-Pierre  had  in  mind  was  thus  to 
confederate  Europe  by  means  of  a  treaty  to  be  signed  by  the  repre- 
sentatives of  European  powers,  and  the  project  itself  has  the  form 
of  a  treaty  for  such  signature.  He  regarded  the  treaty  of  Utrecht, 
which  framed  and  contained  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  West- 
phalia, as  creating  a  satisfactory  state  of  affairs,  and  his  confedera- 
tion was  intended  to  perpetuate  the  status  created  by  these  treaties ; 
and  by  the  creation  of  a  senate  to  legislate  for  members  of  the  union 
and  to  decide  conflicts  arising  among  them  he  hoped  to  prevent  a 
resort  to  arms,  as  by  express  agreement  wars  between  the  members 
of  the  union  were  to  be  renounced. 

Such  is,  in  summary  terms,  Saint-Pierre's  project  for  perpetual 
peace,  and  it  is  perhaps  possible  to  estimate  the  value  of  the  plan 
by  this  simple  statement  of  its  provisions,  but  in  view  of  the  very 
great  influence  exercised  by  the  Abbe's  project — for,  as  pointed  out 
by  our  countryman,  Henry  Wheaton,  in  his  History  of  the  Law  of 
Nations  *  and  by  the  distinguished  German  publicist,  von  Holtzen- 
dorff^,  in  his  "  Idea  of  Perpetual  World  Peace  ",  t  its  main  provisions 
were  incorporated  in  the  German  confederation  of  1815,  and  as 
pointed  out  by  Mr.  Phillips  in  his  "  Confederation  of  Europe  ",$ 

•  In  speaking  of  the  abridged  plan  of  Saint-Pierre,  published  in  1729,  reduced 
to  five  fundamental  articles,  Wheaton  says  that  "  the  almost  verbal  coincidence 
of  these  articles  with  those  of  the  fundamental  act  of  the  Germanic  confederation 
established  by  the  Congress  of  Vienna  in  1815  is  remarkable."  Wheaton's 
History  of  the  Law  of  Nations  in  Europe  and  America,  1845,  p.  263. 

f  "  The  project  of  the  Abb6  de  Saint-Pierre  is  of  great  interest  from  various 
standpoints.  One  would  be  inclined  to  maintain  that  its  author  had  a  presenti- 
ment of  the  Germanic  confederation  of  1815."  Franz  v.  Holtzendorff's  Die  Idee 
des  etoigen  Volkerfriedens  {Sammlung  gemeinverstandlicher  vnssenschaftlicher 
Vortrage,  1882,  vol.  xvii,  p.  687). 

J  Speaking  of  the  Great  Design,  Mr.  Phillips  says,  "It  inspired  the  Projet 
de  Paix  perp4tuelle  of  the  Abb6  de  Saint-Pierre,  and  through  him  the  Emperor 


xxiv  INTRODUCTION 

the  Abbe's  project  was,  it  would  seem,  the  inspiration  of  the  Holj 
Alliance — it  is  advisable  to  state  the  fundamental  articles  of  Saint- 
Pierre's  plan,  twelve  in  number,  which  could  only  be  changed  by 
unanimous  consent,  omitting  the  "  important  articles ",  eight  in 
number,  and  the  "  useful  articles  ",  likewise  eight  in  number,  which 
could  be  changed  at  any  time  by  a  three-fourths  vote  of  the  senate. 
The  fundamental  articles  are: 

1.  The  present  Sovereigns,  by  their  undersigned  Deputies, 
have  agreed  to  the  following  Articles.  There  shall  be  from  this 
day  forward  a  Society,  a  permanent  and  perpetual  Union  be- 
tween the  undersigned  Sovereigns,  and,  if  possible,  among  all 
Christian  Sovereigns,  to  preserve  unbroken  peace  in  Eu- 
rope. .    .    . 

The   Sovereigns   shall  be   perpetually   represented  by  their 
'    Deputies  in  a  perpetual  Congress  or  Senate  in  a  free  city. 

2.  The  European  Society  shall  not  at  all  interfere  with  the 
Government  of  any  State,  except  to  preserve  its  constitution, 
and  to  render  prompt  and  adequate  assistance  to  rulers  and 
chief  magistrates  against  seditious  persons  and  rebels.    .    .    . 

3.  The  Union  shall  employ  its  whole  strength  and  care  in 
order,  during  regencies,  minorities,  or  feeble  reigns,  to  prevent 
injury  to  the  Sovereign,  either  in  his  person  or  prerogatives, 
or  to  the  Sovereign  House,  and  in  case  of  such  shall  send  Com- 
missioners to  inquire  into  the  facts,  and  troops  to  punish  the 
guilty.  ... 

4.  Each  Sovereign  shall  be  contented,  he  and  his  successors, 
with  the  Territory  he  actually  possesses,  or  which  he  is  to  pos- 
sess by  the  accompanying  Treaty.  .  .  .  No  Sovereign,  nor  mem- 
ber of  a  Sovereign  Family,  can  be  Sovereign  of  any  State  besides 
that  or  those  which  are  actually  in  the  possession  of  his  family. 
The  annuities  which  the  Sovereigns  owe  to  the  private  persons 
of  another  State  shall  be  paid  as  heretofore.  No  Sovereign 
shall  assume  the  title  of  Lord  of  any  Country  of  which  he  is 
not  in  possession,  and  the  Sovereigns  shall  not  make  an  ex- 
change of  Territory  or  sign  any  Treaty  among  themselves  ex- 
cept by  a  majority  of  the  four-and- twenty  votes  of  the  Union, 
which  shall  remain  guarantee  for  the  execution  of  reciprocal 
promises. 

Alexander  I.'s  idea  of  a  universal  Holy  Alliance.  .  .  .  It  is  impossible  to  examine 
this  project  without  being  struck  by  the  fact  that  there  is  scarcely  one  of  ita 
provisions  which  does  not  emerge,  at  least  as  a  subject  of  debate  among  the 
Powers,  during  the  years  of  European  reconstruction  after  1814"  (Phillips^ 
op.  cit,  pp.  19,  22-23). 


INTRODUCTION  xxv 

6.  No  Sovereign  shall  henceforth  possess  two  Sovereignties, 
either  hereditary  or  elective,  except  that  the  Electors  of  the 
Empire  may  be  elected  Emperors,  so  long  as  there  shall  be 
Emperors.  If  by  right  of  succession  there  should  fall  to  a 
Sovereign  a  State  more  considerable  than  that  which  he 
possesses,  he  may  leave  that  which  he  possesses,  and  settle  him- 
self on  that  which  is  fallen  to  him. 

6.  The  Kingdom  of  Spain  shall  not  go  out  of  the  House  of 
Bourbon,  .    .    . 

7.  The  Deputies  shall  incessantly  labor  to  codify  all  the 
Articles  of  Commerce  in  general,  and  between  different  nations 
in  particular;  but  in  such  a  manner  that  the  laws  may  be  equal 
and  reciprocal  towards  all  nations,  and  founded  upon  Equity. 
The  Articles  which  shall  have  been  passed  by  a  majority  of  the 
votes  of  the  original  deputies,  shall  be  executed  provisionally 
according  to  their  Form  and  Tenor,  till  they  be  amended  and 
improved  by  three-fourths  of  the  votes,  when  a  greater  number 
of  members  shall  have  signed  the  Union. 

The  Union  shall  establish  in  different  towns  Chambers  of 
Commerce,  consisting  of  Deputies  authorized  to  reconcile,  and 
to  judge  strictly  and  without  Appeal,  the  disputes  that  shall 
arise  either  in  relation  to  Commerce  or  others  matters,  between 
the  subjects  of  different  Sovereigns,  in  value  above  ten  thousand 
pounds;  the  other  suits,  of  less  consequence,  shall  be  decided, 
as  usual,  by  the  judges  of  the  place  where  the  defendant  lives. 
Each  Sovereign  shall  lend  his  hand  to  the  execution  of  the 
judgments  of  the  Chambers  of  Commerce,  as  if  they  were  his 
own  judgments. 

Each  Sovereign  shall,  at  his  own  charge,  exterminate  his 
inland  robbers  and  banditti,  and  the  pirates  on  his  coasts,  upon 
pain  of  making  reparation;  and  if  he  has  need  of  help,  the 
Union  shall  assist  him. 

8.  No  Sovereign  shall  take  up  arms,  or  commit  any  hostility, 
but  against  him  who  shall  be  declared  an  enemy  to  the  European 
Society.  But  if  he  has  any  cause  to  complain  of  any  of  the 
Members,  or  any  demand  to  make  upon  them,  he  shall  order 
his  Deputy  to  present  a  memorial  to  the  Senate  in  the  City  of 
Peace,  and  the  Senate  shall  take  care  to  reconcile  the  difference 
by  its  mediating  Commissioners ;  or,  if  they  cannot  be  recon- 
ciled, the  Senate  shall  judge  them  by  arbitral  judgment,  by 
majority  of  votes  provisionally,  and  by  three-fourths  of  the 
votes  definitely.  This  judgment  shall  not  be  given  until  each 
Senator  shall  have  received  the  instructions  and  orders  of  his 
master  upon  that  point,  and  until  he  shall  have  communicated 
them  to  the  Senate, 


xxvi  INTRODUCTION 

The  Sovereign  who  shall  take  up  arms  before  the  Union  has 
declared  war,  or  who  shall  refuse  to  execute  a  regulation  of  the 
Society,  or  a  judgment  of  the  Senate,  shall  be  declared  an  enemy 
to  the  Society,  and  it  shall  make  war  upon  him,  until  he  be  dis- 
armed, and  until  its  judgment  and  regulations  be  executed, 
and  he  shall  even  pay  the  charges  of  the  war,  and  the  country 
that  shall  be  conquered  from  him  at  the  close  of  hostilities  shall 
be  forever  separated  from  his  dominions. 

If,  after  the  Society  is  formed  to  the  number  of  fourteen 
votes,  a  Sovereign  should  refuse  to  enter  thereinto,  it  shall 
declare  him  an  enemy  to  the  repose  of  Europe,  and  shall  make 
war  upon  him  until  he  enter  into  it,  or  until  he  be  entirely 
despoiled. 

9.  There  shall  be  in  the  Senate  of  Europe  four-and-twenty 
Senators  or  Deputies  of  the  United  Sovereigns,  neither  more 
nor  less,  namely: — France,  Spain^  England,  Holland,  Savoy^ 
Portugal,  Bavaria  and  Associates,  Venice,  Genoa  and  Associ- 
ates, Florence  and  Associates,  Switzerland  and  Associates,  Lor- 
rain  and  Associates,  Sweden,  Denmark,  Poland,  the  Pope,  Mus- 
covy, Austria,  Courland  and  Associates,  Prussia,  Saxony,  Pala- 
tine and  Associates,  Hanover  and  Associates,  Ecclesiastical 
Electors  and  Associates.  Each  Deputy  shall  have  but  one 
vote. 

10.  The  Members  and  Associates  of  the  Union  shall  con- 
tribute to  the  expenses  of  the  Society,  and  to  the  subsidies  for 
its  security,  each  in  proportion  to  his  revenues,  and  to  the 
riches  of  his  people,  and  everyone's  quota  shall  at  first  be  regu- 
lated provisionally  by  a  majority,  and  afterwards  by  three- 
fourths  of  the  votes,  when  the  Commissioners  of  the  Union 
shall  have  taken,  in  each  State,  what  instructions  and  informa- 
tion shall  be  necessary  thereupon;  and  if  anyone  is  found  to 
have  paid  too  much  provisionally,  it  shall  afterwards  be  made 
up  to  him,  both  in  principal  and  interest,  by  those  who  shall 
have  paid  too  little.  The  less  powerful  Sovereigns  and  Asso- 
ciates in  forming  one  vote,  shall  alternately  nominate  their 
Deputy  in  proportion  to  their  quotas. 

11.  When  the  Senate  shall  deliberate  upon  anything  press- 
ing and  imperative  for  the  security  of  the  Society,  either  to 
prevent  or  quell  sedition,  the  question  may  be  decided  by  a 
majority  of  votes  provisionally,  and,  before  it  is  deliberated 
upon,  they  shall  begin  by  deciding,  by  majority,  whether  the 
matter  is  imperative. 

12.  None  of  the  eleven  fundamental  Articles  above  named 
shall  be  in  any  point  altered,  without  the  unanimous  consent  of 
all  the  members ;  but  as  for  the  other  Articles,  the  Society  may 


INTRODUCTION  xxvii 

always,  by  three-fourths  of  the  votes,  add  or  diminish,  for  the 
common  good,  whatever  it  shall  think  iSt.* 

In  the  preface  to  the  Project  the  Abbe  de  Saint-Pierre  makes 
several  very  wise  remarks,  which  have  not  yet  lost  their  aptness. 
Thus  he  says,  "  The  present  constitution  of  Europe  can  only  pro- 
duce almost  continuous  wars,  because  it  can  never  have  sufficient 
guaranty  of  the  execution  of  treaties."  And  again,  he  calls  atten- 
tion to  the  impossibility  of  peace  based  upon  the  principle  of  equilib- 
rium, thus :  "  The  balance  of  power  between  the  House  of  France 
and  the  House  of  Austria  cannot  result  in  a  sufficient  guaranty 
against  foreign  wars  nor  against  civil  wars,  and  consequently  cannot 
result  in  sufficient  security  either  for  the  preservation  of  nations  or 
the  preservation  of  commerce."  t 

It  has  been  said  that  the  Abbe's  plan  forecast  the  Germanic  con- 
federation of  1815,  and  not  unnaturally  so,  because  the  project 
itself  was  based  upon  the  Abbe's  conception  of  the  Germanic  corps, 
as  he  calls  it,  and  indeed  he  draws  the  comparison,  on  the  one  hand, 
between  the  Germanic  corps,  which  existed  in  his  time,  and  the 
European  corps,  which  he  hoped  to  call  into  being.  Continuing,  the 
Abbe  de  Saint-Pierre  says  that  "  the  same  motives  and  the  same 
means  which  have  sufficed  formerly  for  a  permanent  society  of  all 
the  sovereignties  of  Germany  are  within  the  reach  and  at  the  disposal 
of  the  sovereigns  of  to-day,  and  may  suffice  for  the  formation  of  a 
permanent  society  of  all  the  Christian  sovereignties  of  Europe."  t  The 
possibility  of  this  he  bases  upon  the  fact  that  "  the  approbation  which 
most  of  the  sovereigns  of  Europe  gave  to  the  project  of  the  Euro- 
pean society  proposed  to  them  by  Henry  IV  [called  by  Saint-Pierre, 
Henry  the  Great]  justifies  us  in  hoping  that  a  like  project  will  be 
approved  by  their  successors."  t 

After  making  the  above  statements,  the  good  Abbe  puts  his 
entire  case  in  the  form  of  a  premise :  "  If  the  European  Society 
herein  proposed  can  procure  to  the  Christian  princes  sufficient  surety 
of  a  perpetual  peace  within  and  beyond  their  estates,  there  is  none 

*  The  above  translation  is  taken  from  W.  Evans  Darby,  International  Tn- 
hunals,  4th  ed.,  1904,  pp.  70-6,  The  original  French  text  is  to  be  found  in 
Projet  pour  rendre  la  Paix  perp4tuelle  en  Europe,  1713,  vol.  1,  pp.  284-356. 

f  Ibid.,  p.  vi. 

:{:Ibid.,  p.  x. 


xxviii  INTRODUCTION 

of  them  to  whom  it  would  not  be  a  greater  advantage  to  sign  a 
treaty  for  the  establishment  of  this  society  than  not  to  sign  it." 
He  next  states  as  a  fact  that,  "  The  European  society  herein  pro- 
posed can  procure  to  the  crown  princes  sufficient  guaranty  of  a  per- 
petual peace  within  and  without  their  estates."  This  being  the  case, 
he  draws  the  logical  conclusion  that  "  there  will  be  none  of  them  to 
whom  it  will  not  be  more  advantageous  to  sign  the  treaty  for  the 
establishment  of  the  society  than  not  to  sign  it."  * 

Abb6  Saint-Pierre's  project  has  been  stated  at  very  considerable 
length,  and  the  twelve  fundamental  articles  quoted  in  his  own  words. 
His  reasons  for  believing  that  his  project  would  be  successful  have 
likewise  been  stated  in  his  own  language,  for  the  twofold  reason 
that  the  project  was  a  serious,  high-minded  and  wholly  disinterested 
attempt  to  establish  a  permanent  peace  by  means  of  a  European 
society  or  union  based  upon  the  maintenance  of  the  then  existing 
status.  Therein  lay  its  strength  and  its  weakness — its  strength, 
because  the  sovereigns  of  Europe  would  be  more  inclined  to  sign  a 
treaty  guaranteeing  them  their  thrones,  their  possessions  and  the 
rights  of  their  successors  against  war  from  without  and  rebellion 
from  within;  its  weakness,  because  it  precluded  the  possibility  of 
change,  and  change  is  apparently  the  one  constant  factor  in  the 
world's  history.  It  closed  the  door  to  the  ambition  of  the  sovereign 
who  might  wish  to  increase  his  dominions,  and  it  blighted  the  hope 
of  the  people  who  might  wish  to  change  their  sovereigns  or  their 
forms  of  government,  and  by  so  doing  better  their  own  condition. 

Rousseau  was  indeed  a  friendly  critic  of  the  project,  but  he  criti- 
cized the  Abbe  for  having  appealed  to  the  intelligence  and  judgment 
of  the  princes  of  Europe,  instead  of  making  the  lower  appeal  to 
their  interests,  in  a  passage  which  well  deserves  quotation: 

I  would  not  dare  [he  said]  to  reply  with  the  Abbe  de  Saint- 
Pierre  that  the  veritable  glory  of  princes  consists  in  advancing 
the  interests  and  the  happiness  of  their  subjects;  that  all  their 
interests  are  subordinated  to  their  reputation,  and  that  the 
reputation  which  is  acquired  with  the  wise  depends  upon  the 
good  which  we  do  to  our  fellow  beings;  that  perpetual  peace 
being  the  greatest  of  all  undertakings,  and  the  most  likely  to 
cover  its  author  with  immortal  glory,  this  undertaking,  being  the 

*  Projet  pour  rendre  la  Paix  perpituelle  en  Europe,  vol.  1,  pp.  xiii-xiv. 


INTRODUCTION  xxix 

most  useful,  is  therefore  the  most  honorable  to  sovereigns,  the 
only  one  which  is  not  stained  with  blood,  rapine,  tears,  and 
maledictions;  and  finally,  the  surest  way  of  obtaining  distinc- 
tion among  the  mob  of  kings  is  to  work  for  the  public  good. 
Let  us  leave  to  the  demagogues  such  reasons,  which  in  the 
cabinets  of  the  ministers  overwhelmed  with  ridicule  the  author 
of  these  projects,  but  let  us  not  despise,  like  them,  his  argu- 
ments, and  whatever  may  be  the  virtue  of  princes,  let  us  rather 
discourse  of  their  interests.* 

The  great  philosopher  Leibnitz,  to  whom  the  Abbe  de  Saint-Pierre 
had  sent  his  project,  wrote  in  reply,  "  I  have  read  carefully  the 
Project  of  Permanent  Peace  for  Europe,  which  the  Abbe  de  St. 
Pierre  has  done  me  the  honor  to  send  me,  and  I  am  persuaded  that 
such  a  proposal,  taken  as  a  whole,  is  feasible,  and  that  its  execution 
would  be  one  of  the  most  useful  things  in  the  world.  Although  my 
support  is  not  worth  much,  I  have  thought  that  my  sense  of  obliga- 
tion compels  me  not  to  withhold  it,  but  to  add  some  remarks  of  my 
own  for  the  satisfaction  of  an  author  of  such  merit,  who  must  have 
had  much  force  of  character  and  firmness  to  have  dared,  and  been 
able,  to  oppose  with  success  the  crowd  of  prejudices  and  the  taunts 
of  mockery."  t 

Leibnitz,  however,  considered  that  the  subordination  of  the  empire 
was  a  serious  defect,  and  he  proceeded  to  point  out  two  respects  in 
which  the  system  of  the  empire  was  superior  to  that  suggested  by 
Saint-Pierre.  In  the  first  place,  Leibnitz  stated  that  the  tribunal 
of  the  imperial  chamber  (Reichskammergericht)  consists  of  judges 
and  assessors  free  to  follow  their  consciences  without  being  bound 
by  the  instructions  of  the  princes  and  states  nominating  them,  and 
in  the  second  place,  he  objected  that,  in  the  Abbe's  project  there 
was  no  provision  for  hearing  the  complaints  of  subjects  against 
their  sovereigns,  whereas  in  the  empire  subjects  could  plead  against 
their  princes  or  their  magistrates. 

"  The  comment  of  Leibnitz  is  interesting  ",  says  Mr.  Phillips,  "  be- 
cause it  anticipates  the  objection  which,  a  hundred  years  later,  Castle- 
reagh  considered  fatal  to  the  system  of  guarantees,  precisely  similar 
to  that  suggested  in  the  third  article  of  St.  Pierre's  project,  which 

*  Extrait  du  projet  de  paix  perpituelle  de  M.  VAib4  de  Saint-Pierre,  Oeuvres 
computes  de  J.  J.  Rousseau,  P.  Pourrat  Frfires,  Paris,  1832,  vol.  6,  pp.  432-3. 
t  Darby,  op.  cit.,  p.  98. 


XXX  INTRODUCTION 

the  reactionary  powers  sought  to  formulate  at  Aix-la-Chapelle 
and  did  formulate  in  the  Troppau  Protocol.  The  Abbe  de  Saint- 
Pierre  pointed  out  how  the  proposals  in  this  article  would  not 
weaken  but  strengthen  the  princes,  by  guaranteeing  to  each  of  them 
*  not  only  their  states  against  all  foreign  invasion,  but  also  their 
authority  against  all  rebellions  of  their  subjects.'  In  a  Memoran- 
dum on  the  treaties  presented  to  the  powers  at  Aix-la-Chapelle, 
Castlereagh  wrote: 

The  idea  of  an  AUiance  Solidaire  by  which  each  state  shall 
be  bound  to  support  the  state  of  succession,  government  and 
possession  within  all  other  states  from  violence  and  attack, 
upon  condition  of  receiving  for  itself  a  similar  guarantee,  must 
be  understood  as  morally  implying  the  previous  establishment 
of  such  a  system  of  general  government  as  may  secure  and 
enforce  upon  all  kings  and  nations  an  internal  system  of  peace 
and  justice.  Till  the  mode  of  constructing  such  a  system  shall 
be  devised,  the  consequence  is  inadmissible,  as  nothing  could  be 
more  immoral,  or  more  prejudicial  to  the  character  of  govern- 
ment generally,  than  the  idea  that  their  force  was  collectively 
to  be  prostituted  to  the  support  of  established  power,  without 
any  consideration  of  the  extent  to  which  it  was  abused. 

"  In  writing  this,"  Mr.  Phillips  continues,  "  Castlereagh  was 
unconsciously  repeating  and  expanding  a  comment  on  the  Abbe's 
third  article  made  long  before  by  Rousseau,  who  in  his  Jugement 
sur  la  paix  perpetuelle  had  written :  *  One  cannot  guarantee  princes 
against  the  revolt  of  their  subjects  without  at  the  same  time  guar- 
anteeing subjects  against  the  tyranny  of  princes.  Otherwise  the 
institution  could  not  possibly  survive.'  "  * 

Partisans  of  peace  projects  insist  that  their  plans  are  feasible 
and  that  their  critics  are  not  justified  in  denouncing  them  as  imprac- 
ticable, because  until  they  have  been  tried  it  cannot  be  known  that 
they  would  fail.  This  plea  for  the  suspension  of  judgment  cannot  be 
granted  the  Saint-Pierre,  because,  as  Wheaton  and  Holtzendorff  have 
stated,  the  project  was  tried  in  the  Germanic  Confederation  of  1815 
and  it  failed,  and  as  Mr.  Phillips  has  pointed  out  in  his  Confedera- 
tion of  Europe,  Ahh6  Saint-Pierre's  principles  were  weighed  and 
found  wanting  in  the  Holy  Alliance.    Saint-Pierre's  project  is  never- 

•  Phillips,  op.  cit.,  pp.  24-6. 


INTRODUCTION  xxxi 

theless  interesting  and  important,  because,  as  Holtzendorff  has  said, 
and  truly,  "  His  plan  limits  in  reality  and  with  tolerable  accuracy 
the  field  within  which,  at  least  since  the  end  of  the  former  century, 
the  discussion  concerning  the  possibility  of  perpetual  peace  has  in 
its  essentials  taken  place."  * 

It  is  usual  to  consider  Rousseau's  project  of  perpetual  peace,  but 
it  will  not  be  necessary  in  this  connection  to  dwell  upon  it  at  length, 
because  it  is  in  reality  an  analysis  and  justification  of  Saint-Pierre's 
views,  uncouthly  expressed  by  the  author  but  exquisitely  expressed 
by  Rousseau. 

Rousseau  lays  down  three  premises  from  which  he  draws  the  con- 
clusion that  peace  is  possible.  These  premises  are  (1)  that  with  the 
exception  of  Turkey  there  prevails  among  all  the  peoples  of  Europe 
a  social  connection,  imperfect  but  more  compact  than  the  general 
and  loose  ties  of  humanity;  (2)  that  the  imperfection  of  this  society 
makes  the  condition  of  those  who  compose  it  worse  than  would  be 
the  deprivation  of  all  society  amongst  them;  (3)  that  those  primary 
bonds  which  render  this  society  harmful  make  it  at  the  same  time 
easily  capable  of  improvement,  so  that  all  its  members  may  derive 
their  happiness  from  that  which  actually  constitutes  their  misery, 
and  change  the  state  of  war  which  prevails  among  them  into  an 
abiding  peace. 

How  can  this  be  done?  Rousseau  disregards  the  twelve  funda- 
mental articles  of  the  Abbe's  project  and  thus  restates  the  five 
articles  which  replaced  them  in  Saint-Pierre's  abridgment  of  the 
original  project:  That  the  contracting  sovereigns  shall  establish  a 
perpetual  and  irrevocable  alliance,  and  shall  name  their  plenipotenti- 
aries in  a  diet  or  permanent  congress  in  which  all  the  differences  of 
the  contracting  parties  shall  be  adjusted  by  arbitration  or  by  judicial 
decisions  (Article  1)  ;  that  the  number  of  sovereigns  shall  be  specified 
whose  plenipotentiaries  shall  have  the  right  to  vote  in  the  diet,  those 
who  shall  be  invited  to  accede  to  the  treaty,  the  order,  the  time  and 
the  manner  by  which  the  presidency  shall  pass  from  one  to  another  for 
an  equal  period,  and  finally  the  quota  of  contributions  of  money  and 
the  manner  of  assessing  them  to  meet  the  common  expenses  (Article 
2)  ;  that  the  confederation  shall  guarantee  to  each  of  its  members  the 
possession  and  government  of  their  territories  according  to  actual 
*  Die  Idee  des  ewigen  Volkerfriedens,  loc.  cit.,  pp.  19-20. 


xxxii  INTRODUCTION 

possession  and  the  treaties  then  in  effect,  that  disputes  arising  between 
them  should  be  settled  by  the  diet,  and  that  the  members  of  the  diet 
should  renounce  the  right  to  settle  their  disputes  by  force  and  also 
renounce  the  right  to  make  war  on  one  another  (Article  3) ;  that  the 
member  violating  the  fundamental  treaty  should  be  placed  under 
the  ban  of  Europe  and  prescribed  as  a  common  enemy,  that  is  to  say, 
if  it  refuses  to  execute  the  judgments  of  the  diet,  if  it  makes  prepara- 
tions for  war,  if  it  takes  up  arms  to  resist  or  to  attack  any  of  the 
allies,  it  should  be  proceeded  against  by  the  allies  and  reduced  to 
obedience  (Article  4);  that  the  provisional  decisions  of  the  diet 
should  be  by  a  majority,  the  final  decisions  requiring  a  majority  of 
three-fourths  of  the  members  of  the  diet  acting  under  instructions 
from  their  governments,  that  the  diet  could  legislate  for  the  well-being 
of  Europe,  but  could  not  change  any  of  the  provisions  of  the  funda- 
mental articles  without  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  contracting 
powers  (Article  5).* 

In  essence  Rousseau's  plan  is  that  of  Saint-Pierre,  and  indeed 
Rousseau  specifically  disclaimed  originality.  He  had  undertaken  to 
arrange  and  to  edit  the  papers  and  printed  works  of  the  good  Abbe, 
and  the  project  which  bears  his  name  is  in  reality  the  Abbe's  with 
such  comments  as  occurred  to  him  in  his  analysis  and  exposition  of 
the  Abbe's  project. 

Nothing  is  more  common  in  books  of  political  theory  than  the 
statement  that  Rousseau  was  incompetent  in  matters  political,  and 
yet  his  Social  Contract  has  profoundly  influenced  government  as 
well  as  authorities  of  government,  and  its  main  propositions  cannot 
be  gainsaid,  especially  in  the  Americas,  where  the  peoples  have 
separated  themselves  from  Europe  and  created  states  to  their  liking, 
and  where  they  have  changed  governments  and  forms  of  govern- 
ment whenever  they  have  felt  disposed  to  do  so.t 

Rousseau  abridged  or  restated  the  Abbe  de  Saint-Pierre's  project 

•  Extrait  du  pro  jet  de  Paix  perpituelle  de  M.  rAbb4  de  Saint-Pierre,  loc.  cit., 
pp.  423-5. 

f  Wlieatx^n  was  a  man  of  affairs  as  well  as  a  theorist,  and  he  says  in  his 
History  of  the  Law  of  Nations  in  Europe  and  America  that  "Rousseau  pub- 
lished in  1761  a  little  work  to  which  he  modestly  gave  the  title  of  Extrait  du 
Pro  jet  de  Paix  perpituelle  de  M.  VAhhi  de  Saint-Pierre,  but  which  is  stamped 
with  the  marks  of  Rousseau's  peculiar  original  genius  as  a  system-builder  and 
reasoner  upon  the  problem  of  social  science."     (P.  264.) 


INTRODUCTION  xxxiii 

of  a  perpetual  peace,  prefixing  to  it  a  masterly  introduction,  and  he 
followed  it  up  with  a  criticism  called  the  "  Judgment  on  the  Perpetual 
Peace,"  in  which  he  laid  his  finger  not  merely  upon  the  weakness  of 
Saint-Pierre's  project  but  upon  the  simplicity  of  the  good  Abbe  in 
imagining  that  princes  could  be  counted  upon  to  do  the  right  thing 
if  it  were  only  shown  them.  Rousseau  was  hardly  less  a  dreamer 
than  Saint-Pierre  but  he  realized  that,  if  dreams  were  to  be  put  into 
effect  by  princes  and  the  great  of  the  world,  it  could  only  be  done 
by  appealing  to  the  motives  that  influence  them,  namely,  their  ambi- 
tion and  their  self-interest. 

In  his  "  Judgment  on  the  Perpetual  Peace  ",  Rousseau  says : 

In  regard  to  the  disputes  between  prince  and  prince,  can  we 
hope  to  subject  men  to  a  superior  tribunal  who  dare  boast  that 
they  only  hold  their  powers  by  the  sword,  and  who  only  mention 
God  himself  because  he  is  in  heaven.''  Will  sovereigns  submit 
their  quarrels  to  judicial  solution  when  the  rigor  of  the  laws  has 
never  been  able  to  force  private  citizens  to  do  so  in  their  own 
cases?  A  simple  gentleman  who  has  sustained  an  injury  dis- 
dains to  carry  his  complaints  before  the  court  of  the  marshals 
of  France,  and  do  you  wish  that  a  king  should  lay  his  before  a 
European  diet?  There  is,  moreover,  this  difference,  that  one 
sins  against  the  laws  and  doubly  exposes  his  life,  whereas  the 
other  only  exposes  his  subjects;  that  he  employs,  in  taking  up 
arms,  a  right  admitted  by  every  human  being,  and  for  which 
he  claims  to  be  responsible  to  God  alone.  .   .    . 

Incessantly  misled  by  the  appearance  of  things,  princes  will 
reject,  then,  this  peace  when  they  weigh  their  interests  them- 
selves ;  what  will  be  the  result  when  these  interests  are  weighed 
by  their  ministers,  whose  needs  are  always  opposed  to  those 
of  the  people  and  almost  always  to  those  of  the  prince?  Minis- 
ters need  war  to  make  them  indispensable,  to  embarrass  the 
prince  so  that  he  cannot  extricate  himself  without  their  aid, 
and  to  ruin  the  state  if  necessary  rather  than  that  they  should 
lose  their  places.  .   .   . 

Nor  must  we  believe  with  the  Abbe  de  Saint-Pierre  that  even 
with  good-will,  which  neither  princes  nor  their  ministers  will 
ever  have,  it  would  be  easy  to  find  a  favorable  moment  for  the 
execution  of  this  system,  as  it  would  be  necessary  in  such  a 
case  that  the  sum  of  private  interests  should  not  outweigh  the 
common  interest,  and  that  each  should  believe  he  saw  in  the 
well-being  of  all  the  greatest  good  to  be  hoped  for  himself. 
Now,  this  demands  a  union  of  wisdom  in  so  many  heads  and  a 


xxxiv  INTRODUCTION 

union  of  relations  in  so  many  interests  that  we  can  hardly  hope 
for  a  fortuitous  union  of  all  the  necessary  circumstances.  How- 
ever, if  this  agreement  docs  not  happen  there  is  only  force  to 
take  its  place,  in  which  event  it  is  no  longer  a  question  of  per- 
suading but  of  compelling,  and  instead  of  writing  books  we 
must  raise  troops. 

Thus,  although  the  project  might  be  very  wise,  the  means  of 
executing  it  betrayed  the  simplicity  of  the  author.  He  imagined 
in  his  goodness  that  it  was  only  necessary  to  assemble  a  con- 
gress and  propose  therein  his  articles,  that  they  would  be  signed 
and  that  all  would  be  ended.  Let  us  admit  that  in  all  the 
projects  of  this  honest  man  he  saw  well  enough  the  effect  of 
things  when  they  were  established,  but  that  his  judgment  was 
that  of  a  child  as  to  the  means  of  putting  them  into  effect. 

I  do  not  need  to  add  more  to  prove  that  the  project  of  the 
Christian  republic  is  not  chimerical  than  to  name  its  first  author, 
for  assuredly  Henry  IV  was  neither  a  fool  nor  Sully  a  visionary.* 

The  value  of  Rousseau's  plan  consists  in  the  skill  with  which  he 
justified  the  Abbe's  purpose,  and  if  the  arguments  which  he  himself 
advances  do  not  warrant  the  confederation,  they  do  at  least  justify 
the  international  organization  of  a  looser  kind  for  the  negotiation 
of  treaties  and  the  settlement  of  disputes  peaceably  by  proper 
agencies. 

Bentham's  "  Plan  for  an  Universal  and  Perpetual  Peace  "  appears 
to  have  been  written  between  1786  and  1789,  but  it  was  first  published 
in  1839.  In  justification  of  it  he  says,  "The  happiest  of  man- 
kind are  sufferers  by  war;  and  the  wisest,  nay,  even  the  least  wise, 
are  wise  enough  to  ascribe  the  chief  of  their  sufferings  to  that 
cause."  The  project  consists  of  some  fourteen  articles,  to  which  are 
prefixed  "  two  fundamental  propositions : — 1.  The  reduction  and 
fixation  of  the  force  of  the  several  nations  that  compose  the  Euro- 
pean system;  2.  The  emancipation  of  the  distant  dependencies  of 
each  state."  t  In  the  matter  of  armament  it  may  be  said  that  the 
distinguished  reformer  was  of  the  opinion  that  "  general  and  per- 
petual treaties  might  be  formed,  limiting  the  number  of  troops  to 
be  maintained."  The  chief  proposal  to  maintain  the  peace  after 
the  limitation  of  armament  and  the  emancipation  of  distant  depen- 

•  Rousseau's  Jugement  sur  la  Pais  perp^tucUe,  loc.  cit.,  vol.  6,  pp.  452-6. 
f  Principles  of  International  Law,  essay  iv,  Bowring's  ed.  of  The  Works 
of  Jeremy  Bentham,  pt.  viii,  p.  646. 


INTRODUCTION  xxxv 

dencies  was  "  by  the  establishment  of  a  common  court  of  judicature 
for  the  decision  of  differences  between  the  several  nations,  although 
such  a  court  were  not  to  be  armed  with  any  coercive  powers."  * 
The  creation  and  operation  of  such  a  court  was,  in  his  opinion,  the 
necessary  complement  of  the  reduction  of  armament,  because  war  is 
the  consequence  of  difference  of  opinion  between  two  nations,  because 
there  is  no  tribunal  common  to  them.  "  Establish  a  common  tribu- 
nal," he  says,  "  the  necessity  for  war  no  longer  follows  from  differ- 
ence of  opinion.  Just  or  unjust,  the  decision  of  the  arbiters  will 
save  the  credit,  the  honor  of  the  contending  party."  t  The  tribunal 
contemplated  by  Bentham  was  apparently  a  diplomatic  body,  which 
he  calls  a  congress  or  diet,  and  which  he  says  "  might  be  constituted 
by  each  power  sending  two  deputies  to  the  place  of  meeting :  one  of 
these  to  be  the  principal,  the  other  to  act  as  an  occasional  substi- 
tute." The  proceedings  of  the  congress  or  diet  were  to  be  public, 
and  "  its  power  would  consist ",  to  quote  his  own  language,  "1.  In 
reporting  its  opinion;  2.  In  causing  that  opinion  to  be  circulated 
in  the  dominions  of  each  state;  ...  3.  After  a  certain  time,  in 
putting  the  refractory  state  under  the  ban  of  Europe."  It  will  be 
seen  that  Bentham  contemplated  the  use  of  force,  for  in  commenting 
upon  the  third  point  he  says,  "  There  might,  perhaps,  be  no  harm 
in  regulating,  as  a  last  resource,  the  contingent  to  be  furnished  by 
the  several  states  for  enforcing  the  decrees  of  the  court."  He  felt, 
however,  that  a  free  press  could  be  trusted  to  create  a  public  opinion 
in  behalf  of  compliance  with  the  judgments  of  the  court,  and  that 
the  resort  to  force  would  be  unnecessary. 

It  would  seem  that  Bentham  had  in  mind  the  submission  to  the  con- 
gress or  diet  of  all  disputes  between  nations,  although  it  might  be 
inferred  that  in  the  use  of  the  term  judicature  or  court  Bentham  was 
speaking  of  justiciable  disputes.  However  that  may  be,  the  plan  in 
its  entirety  was  nullified  by  the  prerequisites,  for  nations  are  unwill- 
ing to  renounce  colonies,  even  though  they  may  be  the  source  of  war, 
and  disarmament  or  the  limitation  thereof  will  no  doubt  continue  to 
be  unacceptable  until  a  satisfactory  substitute  has  been  proposed  for 
war  and  incorporated  in  the  practice  of  nations. 

The  philosopher  Kant  was  no  doubt  influenced  by  the  Treaty  of 
Rastatt,  which  had  just  been  negotiated  at  the  Congress  of  Bale 
*  Ibid.,  p.  547.  t  Ibid.,  p.  552. 


xxxvi  INTRODUCTION 

in  1795,  just  as  the  Abb6  de  Saint-Pierre's  project  was  due  to  the 
Congress  of  Utrecht  of  1714-15.  Both  are  in  the  form  of  treaties. 
The  philosopher  of  Konigsberg  drafted  six  preliminary  articles,  the 
acceptance  of  which  he  believed  to  be  essential  to  perpetual  peace. 
Thej  were  interesting  in  his  day  and  generation,  and  they  are  as 
timely  to-day  as  when  first  drafted,  although  they  are  likely  to  wait 
many  a  day  for  their  acceptance.  They  are  therefore  quoted  in 
full,  without  comment,  as  comment  seems  unnecessary: 

1.  No  treaty  of  peace  shall  be  regarded  as  valid,  if  made  with 
the  secret  reservation  of  material  for  a  future  war. 

2.  No  state  having  an  independent  existence — whether  it  be 
great  or  small — shall  be  acquired  by  another  through  inherit- 
ance, exchange,  purchase  or  donation. 

3.  Standing  armies  {rrules  perpetuus),  shall  be  abolished  in 
course  of  time. 

4.  No  national  debts  shall  be  contracted  in  connection  with 
the  external  affairs  of  the  state. 

5.  No  state  shall  violently  interfere  with  the  constitution  and 
administration  of  another. 

6.  No  state  at  war  with  another  shall  countenance  such  modes 
of  hostility  as  would  make  mutual  confidence  impossible  in  a 
subsequent  state  of  peace :  such  are  the  employment  of  assassins 
(percussores)  or  of  poisoners  {venef.ci),  breaches  of  capitula- 
tion, the  instigating  and  making  use  of  treachery  {perduellio) 
in  the  hostile  state.* 

Kant  considered  that  to  secure  perpetual  peace  the  civil  constitu- 
tion of  every  state  must  be  republican  and  that  all  international  right 
must  be  grounded  upon  a  federation  of  free  states.  The  term  "  repub- 
lican "  as  used  by  Kant  is,  however,  to  be  understood  as  synonymous 
with  representative  government,  and  he  believed  that  neither  a  des- 
potism nor  a  democracy  would  prevent  war,  but  that  representatives 
of  the  people  could  be  trusted  to  pass  upon  the  question  of  war  and 
peace  reasonably.  We  have  unfortunately  learned  that  constitutional, 
in  the  sense  of  representative,  government  does  not  necessarily  have 
the  effect  which  Kant  hoped  it  would  have.  A  confederation  of  states 
was,  in  the  philosopher's  opinion,  requisite  to  international  peace. 
It  should  be  observed,  however,  that  it  is  a  federation  of  free  states ; 

•  Perpetual  Peace,  A  Philosophical  Essay  by  Immanuel  Kant,  1795,  transla- 
tion of  M.  Campbell  Smith,  1915,  pp.  107-14. 


INTRODUCTION  xxxvii 

that  is  to  say,  a  federation  in  which  the  states  do  not  lose  their  iden- 
tity or  their  sovereign  prerogatives,  and  Kant  was  very  careful  to 
point  out  that  it  was  not  to  be  a  permanent  confederation.  It  was 
to  be  brought  about  by  the  free  consent  of  the  states  desiring  to 
enter  into  it,  and  continuance  in  it  was  likewise  to  be  voluntary. 
Kant's  language  on  this  point  is  so  important  as  to  suggest  quota- 
tion, and  in  view  of  the  peace  conferences  which  have  been  called 
by  the  Czar  of  Russia  and  which  have  met  at  The  Hague,  although 
unfortunately  not  at  stated  periods,  Kant's  reference  to  The  Hague 
has  much  more  than  a  passing  interest.  However,  he  should  be 
allowed  to  speak  for  himself,  which  he  does  as  follows : 

Such  a  general  association  of  states,  having  for  its  object  the 
preservation  of  peace,  might  be  termed  the  permanent  congress 
of  nations.  Such  was  the  diplomatic  conference  formed  at  The 
Hague  during  the  first  part  of  the  eighteenth  century,  with  a 
similar  view,  consisting  of  the  ministers  of  the  greater  part  of  the 
European  courts  and  even  of  the  smallest  republics.  In  this 
manner  all  Europe  was  constituted  into  one  federal  state,  of 
which  the  several  members  submitted  their  differences  to  the 
decision  of  this  conference  as  their  sovereign  arbiter.  .    .    . 

What  we  mean  to  propose  is  a  general  congress  of  nations, 
of  which  both  the  meeting  and  the  duration  are  to  depend  en- 
tirely on  the  sovereign  wills  of  the  several  members  of  the  league, 
and  not  an  indissoluble  union  like  that  which  exists  between  the 
several  states  of  North  America  founded  on  a  municipal  con- 
stitution. Such  a  congress  and  such  a  league  are  the  only  means 
of  realizing  the  idea  of  a  true  public  law,  according  to  which  the 
differences  between  nations  would  be  determined  by  civil  proceed- 
ings as  those  between  individuals  are  determined  by  civil  judica- 
ture, instead  of  resorting  to  war,  a  mean  of  redress  worthy  only 
of  barbarians.* 

Kant  does  not  work  out  in  detail  the  idea  of  a  congress,  meeting 
from  time  to  time,  to  agree  upon  principles  of  international  law, 
nor  does  he  suggest  the  establishment  of  an  international  court  to 
administer  the  law  which  the  practice  and  the  custom  of  nations 
has  made,  or  which  has  been  agreed  to  in  the  Congress  of  Nations. 
Both  these  ideas  present  themselves  to  the  mind  of  the  reader,  even 

*  Rechtslehre,  pt.  2,  sec.  61    {Immanuel  Kanfs  SdmmtUche  Werke,  Eosen- 
kranz  and  Schubert  ed.,  1838,  pt.  9,  p.  204) ;  Wheaton,  op.  cit.,  p.  754. 


xxxviii  INTRODUCTION 

thougli  they  may  not  have  been  formulated  and  expressed  by  Kant, 
who  only  says  that 

If  it  be  a  duty  to  cherish  the  hope  that  the  universal  dominion 
of  public  law  may  ultimately  be  realized,  by  a  gradual  but  con- 
tinued progress,  the  establishment  of  perpetual  peace  to  take 
the  place  of  those  mere  suspensions  of  hostility  called  treaties 
of  peace,  is  not  a  mere  chimera,  but  a  problem,  of  which  time, 
abridged  by  the  uniform  and  continual  progress  of  the  human 
mind,  will  ultimately  furnish  a  satisfactory  solution.* 

The  German  philosopher  certainly  was  one  of  the  choice  spirits  not 
only  of  his  time,  but  of  all  time. 


The  various  projects  which  have  been  outlined  in  passing,  with- 
out entering  into  their  details,  made  but  a  limited  appeal ;  they  made 
little  or  no  impression  upon  the  public  at  large.  They  contemplated 
changes  in  the  society  of  nations  which  would  either  have  sacrificed  or 
jeopardized  the  independence  of  nations.  They  disregarded  sys- 
tematically the  equality  of  nations.  For  the  most  part  they  advo- 
cated either  a  perpetual  and  forcible  union,  or  at  least  a  voluntary 
federation,  and  they  required  for  their  operation  a  change  of  thought 
as  well  as  a  change  in  the  standard  of  conduct.  They  were  opposed 
to  existing  conditions,  and  for  that  reason  they  lacked  a  substantial 
basis  on  which  to  rear  permanent  structures.  Mr.  Ladd,  on  the  con- 
trary, accepted  nations  as  actually  constituted,  proposed  a  Congress 
of  such  nations,  in  which  each  would  be  represented  with  an  equal 
vote,  and  the  establishment  of  a  court  of  justice  for  the  settlement 
of  disputes  between  them.  Living  in  a  free  country  where  public 
opinion  is  controlled  by  the  people  as  a  whole,  he  realized  the  neces- 
sity of  following  public  opinion,  and  the  spirit  of  his  project  was 
that  an  educated  public  opinion  might  in  time  force  itself  upon 
the  government  of  its  choice.  Interesting  in  itself,  Ladd's  project 
deserves  examination  and  consideration  by  reason  of  its  prophecy 

*Eaiit,  Zum  ewigen  Frieden   {Sammtliche  Werke),  loc.  cit.,  pt.  7,  p.  291; 
Wheaton,  op.  cit,  p.  753. 


INTRODUCTION  xxxix 

of  a  conference,  and  may  not  be  dismissed  with  a  mere  mention. 
The  various  projects  which  have  been  mentioned  were  drafted  by 
Europeans  and  had  particular  reference  to  European  conditions 
and  institutions  insofar  as  actual  conditions  were  considered  or 
referred  to.  Mr.  Ladd's  plan  betrays  its  American  origin, 
although  he  himself  refers  to  and  relies  upon  Swiss  experience  and 
institutions,  substituting  an  international  for  a  national  congress 
and  an  international  for  a  supreme  court. 

Mr.  Ladd's  plan  for  the  establishment  of  a  Congress  to  make 
international  law  and  a  court  to  interpret  and  apply  it  is  found  in 
his  Essay  on  a  Congress  of  Nations,  published  in  Boston  in  the  year 
1840,  and  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  this  little  book  contained 
within  its  covers,  and  within  singularly  narrow  compass,  not  merely 
the  arguments  for,  but  the  arguments  against  the  establishment  of 
both  institutions. 

The  plan  consisted  of  two  parts: 

1st.  A  congress  of  ambassadors  from  all  those  Christian 
and  civilized  nations  who  should  choose  to  send  them,  for  the 
purpose  of  settling  the  principles  of  international  law  by  com- 
pact and  agreement,  of  the  nature  of  a  mutual  treaty,  and  also 
of  devising  and  promoting  plans  for  the  preservation  of  peace, 
and  meliorating  the  condition  of  man. 

2d.  A  court  of  nations,  composed  of  the  most  able  civilians 
in  the  world,  to  arbitrate  or  judge  such  cases  as  should  be 
brought  before  it,  by  the  mutual  consent  of  two  or  more  con- 
tending nations.* 

Upon  this  firm  foundation  Mr.  Ladd  rests  his  structure,  which 
will  one  day  take  visible  form  in  a  stated  periodic  conference  of  the 
nations  at  The  Hague  and  in  an  international  court  of  justice,  like- 
wise at  The  Hague. 

For  the  details  and  elaboration  necessary  for  a  correct  under- 
standing of  the  nature  and  the  role  each  institution  was  destined  to 
play  in  the  economy  of  nations,  we  might  refer  to  Mr.  Ladd's  Essay 
without  further  description,  analysis,  or  quotation,  and  yet  so  to 
do  would  be  unfair  to  Mr.  Ladd,  whose  main  principles  should  be 
here  stated  as  far  as  possible  in  his  own  words,  in  order  that  his 

•Advertisement,  post,  p.  xlix. 


xl  INTRODUCTION 

project  might  be  compared  with  the  classic  projects  already  men- 
tioned, and  in  order  that  the  reader  might  see  its  relation  to  the 
international  movement  which  began  with  the  Czar's  manifesto  for 
an  international  conference  at  The  Hague.  The  material  portion 
of  Mr.  Ladd's  views,  both  as  to  the  Congress  and  as  to  the  Court  of 
Nations,  arc  therefore  set  out  in  his  own  words  in  this  place. 
First,  as  to  the  congress  of  nations : 

1.  Our  plan  is  composed  of  two  parts,  viz.,  a  Congress  of 
Nations  and  a  Court  of  Nations,  either  of  which  might  exist 
without  the  other,  but  they  would  tend  much  more  to  the  happi- 
ness of  mankind  if  united  in  one  plan,  though  not  in  one  body. 
A  congress  of  ambassadors  from  all  those  Christian  and  civilized 
nations  who  should  choose  to  unite  in  the  measure,  is  highly 
desirable  to  fix  the  fluctuating  and  various  points  of  interna- 

'  tional  law,  by  the  consent  of  all  the  parties  represented,  mak- 
ing the  law  of  nations  so  plain  that  a  court  composed  of  the 
most  eminent  jurists  of  the  countries  represented  at  the  Con- 
gress, could  easily  apply  those  principles  to  any  particular  case 
brought  before  them.  Such  a  congress  would  provide  for  the 
organization  of  such  a  court;  but  they  would  not  constitute 
that  court ;  which  would  be  permanent,  like  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,  while  the  Congress  would  be  transient  or 
periodical,  with  a  change  of  members  like  the  Congress  or 
Senate  of  the  United  States.  It  is  not  proposed  that  the 
legislative  and  judiciary  bodies  shall  be  united.  The  Congress 
of  Nations,  therefore,  is  one  body,  and  the  creator  of  the 
Court  of  Nations,  which  is  another  distinct  body.  Any  nation 
represented  at  the  Congress  might  change  its  delegates  as  often 
as  it  pleased,  like  other  ambassadors,  but  the  members  of  the 
court  would  hold  their  offices  during  good  behavior. 

2.  The  Congress  of  Nations  would  be  organized  by  a  con- 
vention, composed  of  ambassadors  from  all  those  Christian  or 
civilized  nations  who  should  concur  in  the  measure,  each  nation 
having  one  vote,  however  numerous  may  be  the  ambassadors 
sent  to  the  convention.  .  .  . 

8.  After  organization,  the  Congress  would  proceed  to  the 
consideration  of  the  first  principles  of  the  law  of  nations  as 
they  are  laid  down  by  civilians  and  agreed  to  by  treaties, 
throwing  all  the  light  which  the  congregated  wisdom  of  the 
civilized  world  contains  on  the  principles  of  international  law, 
and  applying  those  principles  to  classes  of  individual  cases. 
No  principle  would  be  established,  unless  it  had  the  unanimous 


INTRODUCTION  xH 

consent  of  all  the  nations  represented  at  the  Congress,  and  rati- 
fied by  all  the  governments  of  those  nations,  so  that  each  and 
every  principle  would  resemble  a  treaty,  by  which  each  nation 
represented  bound  itself  to  every  other  nation  represented,  to 
abide  by  certain  expressed  principles  in  their  future  intercourse 
with  one  another;  which  agreement  or  treaty  shall  not  be 
annulled,  except  by  the  consent  of  all  the  parties  making  it. 

4.  That  the  progress  of  such  a  Congress  would  be  very  slow, 
it  must  be  allowed;  but  so  far  from  being  the  worse,  it  would 
be  the  better  for  that,  and  more  likely  to  produce  permanent 
and  useful  results.  It  would  not  be  necessary  that  each  article 
of  the  compact,  thus  entered  into,  should  be  ratified  by  the 
{nations  concerned,  before  the  Congress  proceeded  to  settle 
other  points ;  but  the  whole,  having  been  agreed  on  in  Congress, 
could  be  submitted  to  the  governments  represented,  and  such 
points  as  should  be  unanimously  adopted  should  be  considered 
as  settled  points  of  international  law,  and  the  remainder  left 
open  for  further  investigation;  and  thus  all  the  most  material 
points  of  international  law  would  be  forever  settled,  and  other 
points  put  in  a  fair  way  of  being  settled.  The  Court  of  Na- 
tions need  not  be  delayed  until  all  the  points  of  international 
law  were  settled ;  but  its  organization  might  be  one  of  the  first 
things  for  the  Congress  of  Nations  to  do,  and  in  the  mean 
time,  the  Court  of  Nations  might  decide  cases  brought  before 
it  on  principles  generally  known  and  acknowledged.* 

Next,  as  to  the  court  of  nations: 

1.  It  is  proposed  to  organize  a  Court  of  Nations,  composed 
of  as  many  members  as  the  Congress  of  Nations  shall  previously 
agree  upon,  say  two  from  each  of  the  powers  represented  at 
the  Congress.  The  power  of  the  court  to  be  merely  advisory. 
It  is  to  act  as  a  high  court  of  admiralty,  but  without  its  enforc- 
ing powers.  There  is  to  be  no  sheriff,  or  posse,  to  enforce  its 
commands.  It  is  to  take  cognizance  only  of  such  cases  as  shall 
be  referred  to  it,  by  the  free  and  mutual  consent  of  both  parties 
concerned,  like  a  chamber  of  commerce;  and  is  to  have  no 
more  power  to  enforce  its  decisions  than  an  ecclesiastical  court 
in  this  country. 

2.  The  members  of  this  court  are  to  be  appointed  by  th^ 
governments  represented  in  the  Congress  of  Nations,  and  shall 
hold  their  places  according  to  the  tenure  previously  agreed  on 
in  the  Congress — probably  during  good  behavior.     Whether 

♦  Post,  pp.  8-10. 


xlii  INTRODUCTION 

they  should  be  paid  by  the  governments  sending  them,  or  by  the 
nations  represented  in  the  Congress  conjointly,  according  to 
the  ratio  of  their  population  or  wealth,  may  be  agreed  on  in 
the  Congress.  The  court  should  organize  itself  by  choosing 
a  president  and  vice-presidents  from  among  themselves,  and 
appoint  the  necessary  clerks,  secretaries,  reporters,  etc. ;  and 
they  should  hear  counsel  on  both  sides  of  the  questions  to  be 
judged.  They  might  meet  once  a  year  for  the  transaction  of 
business,  and  adjourn  to  such  time  and  place  as  they  should 
think  proper.  Their  meeting  should  never  be  in  a  country 
which  had  a  case  on  trial.  These  persons  should  enjoy  the 
same  privileges  and  immunities  as  ambassadors. 

3.  Their  verdicts,  like  the  verdicts  of  other  great  courts, 
should  be  decided  by  a  majority,  and  need  not  be,  like  the 
decrees  of  the  Congress,  unanimous.  .  .  . 

4.  All  cases  submitted  to  the  court  should  be  judged  by  the 
true  interpretation  of  existing  treaties,  and  by  the  laws  enacted 
by  the  Congress  and  ratified  by  the  nations  represented;  and 
where  these  treaties  and  laws  fail  of  establishing  the  point  at 
issue,  they  should  judge  the  cause  by  the  principles  of  equity 
and  justice. 

6.  In  cases  of  disputed  boundary,  the  court  should  have  the 
power  to  send  surveyors  appointed  by  themselves,  but  at  the 
expense  of  the  parties,  to  survey  the  boundaries,  collect  facts 
on  the  spot,  and  report  to  the  court.  .  .  . 

6.  This  court  should  not  only  decide  on  all  cases  brought 
before  it  by  any  two  or  more  independent,  contending  nations, 
but  they  should  be  authorized  to  offer  their  mediation  where 
war  actually  exists,  or  in  any  difficulty  arising  between  any 
two  or  more  nations  which  would  endanger  the  peace  of  the 
world.  .  .  . 

8.  It  should  be  the  duty  of  a  Court  of  Nations,  from  time 
to  time,  to  suggest  topics  for  the  consideration  of  the  Congress, 
as  new  or  unsettled  principles,  favorable  to  the  peace  and  wel- 
fare of  nations,  would  present  themselves  to  the  court,  in  the 
adjudication  of  cases.  .    .    . 

9.  There  are  many  other  cases  beside  those  above  mentioned, 
in  which  such  a  court  would  either  prevent  war  or  end  it.  A 
nation  would  not  be  justified,  in  the  opinion  of  the  world,  in 
going  to  war,  when  there  was  an  able  and  impartial  umpire  to 
judge  its  case;  and  many  a  dispute  would  be  quashed  at  the 
outset,  if  it  were  known  that  the  world  would  require  an  impar- 
tial investigation  of  it  by  able  judges.* 

•  Post,  pp.  34-7. 


INTRODUCTION  xliii 

Mr.  Ladd,  it  will  be  recalled,  regarded  the  congress  as  a  diplo- 
matic body  and  the  court  as  a  judicial  body,  and  the  only  credit  he 
takes  to  himself  is  for  their  separation.  The  line  of  separation, 
however,  is  on  one  occasion  blurred  or  indistinctly  drawn,  as  he 
allows  the  members  of  the  court  "  to  offer  their  mediation  where 
war  actually  exists  or  in  any  difficulty  arising  between  any  two  or 
more  nations  which  would  endanger  the  peace  of  the  world."  It 
would  seem  that  providing  the  court  with  powers  of  mediation  testi- 
fies to  the  goodness  of  his  heart  rather  than  to  the  strength  of  his 
understanding,  for  mediation  is  political,  therefore  diplomatic.  It 
can  hardly  be  called  a  judicial  function.  The  matter,  however,  is 
trifling,  and  is  mentioned  as  perhaps  the  chief  if  not  the  sole  in- 
stance in  which  Mr.  Ladd  disregarded  the  separation  of  functions 
of  the  two  international  agencies. 

In  the  following  passage  Mr.  Ladd  outlines  at  once  the  policy  of 
his  Congress  and  the  actual  program  of  the  Hague  Conferences: 

The  Congress  of  Nations  is  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  the 
internal  affairs  of  nations,  or  with  insurrections,  revolutions, 
or  contending  factions  of  people  or  princes,  or  with  forms  of 
government,  but  solely  to  concern  themselves  with  the  inter- 
course of  nations  in  peace  and  war.  1st.  To  define  the  rights 
of  belligerents  towards  each  other;  and  endeavor,  as  much  as 
possible,  to  abate  the  horrors  of  war,  lessen  its  frequency,  and 
promote  its  termination.  2d.  To  settle  the  rights  of  neutrals, 
and  thus  abate  the  evils  which  war  inflicts  on  those  nations  that 
are  desirous  of  remaining  in  peace.  3d.  To  agree  on  measures 
of  utility  to  mankind  in  a  state  of  peace ;  and  4th,  To  organize 
a  Court  of  Nations.  Those  are  the  four  great  divisions  of 
the  labors  of  the  proposed  Congress  of  Nations.* 

The  resemblance  between  Ladd's  project  and  the  Hague  Confer- 
ences is  so  patent  as  to  need  no  comment,  and  while  it  would  be  an 
exaggeration  to  insist  that  the  Conference  is  the  direct  result  of 
Ladd's  Essay  on  a  Congress  of  Nations,  it  would  be  unfair  not  to 
state  that  Ladd's  project  became  widely  known  in  America,  where 
public  opinion  was  created  in  its  behalf;  that  it  was  published  in 
England,  and  influenced  the  peace  movement  along  Ladd's  lines, 
and  that  the  project  for  the  establishment  of  a  Congress  and  a 

*  Post,  p.  10. 


xliv  INTRODUCTION 

Court  of  Nations  was,  by  the  faithful  disciple,  Elihu  Burritt,  laid 
before  the  various  Peace  Conferences  of  Brussels  (1848),  Paris 
(1849),  Frankfort  (1850),  and  London  (1851). 

It  is  perhaps  not  too  much  to  say  that  had  not  the  Crimean  War 
broken  out  in  the  fifties,  the  experiment  of  a  conference  would  have 
been  tried  and  a  permanent  court  established  long  before  the  present 
generation. 

In  commenting  upon  Saint-Pierre's  scheme.  Cardinal  Fleury 
pleasantly  told  the  author  of  the  Essay  that  "  he  had  forgotten  one 
preliminary  article,  which  was  the  delegation  of  missionaries  to  dis- 
pose the  hearts  of  the  princes  of  Europe  to  submit  to  such  a  diet."  To 
which  Ladd  replied: 

The  peace  societies  must  furnish  these  missionaries,  and  send 

them   to  the  princes   in  monarchial  governments,  and  to  the 

.  people    in    mixed    and    republican    governments.      Let    public 

opinion  be  on  our  side,  and  missionaries  will  not  be  wanting.* 

And  again: 

Before  either  the  President  or  the  Congress  of  these  United 
States  will  act  on  this  subject,  the  sovereign  people  must  act, 
and  before  they  will  act,  they  must  be  acted  on  by  the  friends 
of  peace ;  and  the  subject  must  be  laid  before  the  people,  in  all 
parts  of  our  country,  as  much  as  it  has  been  in  Massachusetts, 
where  there  has,  probably,  been  as  much  said  and  done  on  the 
subject,  as  in  all  the  other  twenty-five  states  of  the  Union. 
When  the  whole  country  shall  understand  the  subject  as  well 
as  the  state  of  Massachusetts,  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
will  be  as  favorable  to  a  Congress  of  Nations  as  the  General 
Court  of  Massachusetts ;  and  when  the  American  Government 
shall  take  up  the  subject  in  earnest,  it  will  begin  to  be  studied 
and  understood  by  the  enlightened  nations  of  Europe.f 

Mr.  Ladd  cherished  no  illusions.  He  believed  that  his  plan  was 
practical,  and  believing,  likewise,  that  it  was  wise  and  just,  he  felt 
that  it  could  wait  years,  if  need  be,  for  its  realization,  and  that  re- 
peated failures  would  not  prevent  ultimate  triumph.  For  example, 
after  describing  various  attempts  to  form  a  Congress  of  Nations, 
especially  at  Panama,  he  says : 

•  Post,  p.  62.  t  Post,  p.  72. 


INTRODUCTION  xlv 

The  inference  to  be  deduced  from  this  abortive  attempt  [at 
Panama]  is,  that  the  governments  of  Christendom  are  willing 
to  send  delegates  to  any  such  Congress,  whenever  it  shall  be 
called  hy  a  respectable  states  well  established  in  its  own  govern- 
ment, if  called  in  a  time  of  peace,  to  meet  at  a  proper  place. 
That  this  attempt  at  a  Congress  of  Nations,  or  even  a  dozen 
more,  should  prove  abortive  on  account  of  defects  in  their 
machinery  or  materials,  ought  not  to  discourage  us,  any  more 
than  the  dozen  incipient  attempts  at  a  steamboat,  which  proved 
abortive  for  similar  reasons,  should  have  discouraged  Fulton. 
Every  failure  throws  new  light  on  this  subject,  which  is  founded 
in  the  principles  of  truth  and  equity.  Some  monarch,  presi- 
dent, or  statesman — some  moral  Fulton,  as  great  in  ethics  as 
he  was  in  physics,  will  yet  arise,  and  complete  this  great  moral 
machine,  so  as  to  make  it  practically  useful,  but  improvable  by 
coming  generations.  Before  the  fame  of  such  a  man,  your 
Caesars,  Alexanders,  and  Napoleons  will  hide  their  diminished 
heads,  as  the  twinkling  stars  of  night  fade  away  before  the 
glory  of  the  full-orbed  king  of  day.* 

When  the  Conference  called  by  the  "  respectable  state  ",  namely, 
Russia,  shall  have  become  permanent  and  assemble  periodically  to 
correct  the  inequalities  and  deficiencies  of  the  law  of  nations,  and 
when  a  court  of  nations  composed  of  judges  exists  as  a  permanent 
institution  before  which  nations  appear  as  suitors,  and  when  man- 
kind, accustomed  to  these  institutions,  recognize  their  importance, 
the  name  of  William  Ladd  will  undoubtedly  figure  among  the  bene- 
factors of  his  kind. 

James  Beown  Scott, 
Director  of  the  Division  of  International  Law, 

Washington,  D.  C, 
February  28,  1916. 

•Post,  p.  57. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Introduction iii 

Advertisement xlix 

CHAPTER  I. 
Introduction  and  General  Remarks 1 

CHAPTER  II. 
On  the  organization  of  the  proposed  Congress  of  Nations  .       .       ,       .       .       8 

CHAPTER  III. 
On  the  rights  of  belligerents  with  respect  to  each  other 12 

CHAPTER  IV. 
On  certain  rights  of  belligerents  which  may  effect  Neutrals  also      ...     18 

CHAPTER  V. 
On  the  rights  of  Neutrals,  to  be  established  by  the  Congress  of  Nations  .       .     22 

CHAPTER  VI. 
On  principles  and  acts  of  a  civil  and  pacific  nature,  affecting  the  inter- 
course of  the  World  and  the  happiness  of  Mankind,  to  be  settled  and 
agreed  upon  by  a  Congress  of  Nations 29 

CHAPTER  VII. 
A  Court  of  Nations  for  the  peaceful  adjudication  of  those  cases  of  inter- 
national difficulty  which  should  be  referred  to  it,  by  the  mutual  consent 
of  two  or  more  Nations .34 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
Historical  notices  of  past  attempts  at  something  like  a  Congress  and  Court 

of  Nations 38 

CHAPTER  IX. 
Some  account  of  attempts  which  have  been  made  by  private  individuals  and 
Peace  Societies  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Public  to  the  subject  of  a 
Congress  of  Nations 61 

CHAPTER  X. 
On  the  objections  which  may  be  raised  against  a  Congress  and  Court  of 
Nations 75 

zlvii 


xlviii  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  XL  p^o. 

The  reasons  which  we  have  to  hope  that  a  Congress  and  Court  of  Nations 

may  be,  before   long,   established .83 

CHAPTER  XII. 
On  the  benefits  which  would  be  likely  to  accrue  from  a  Congress  and  a  Court 
of  Nations 07 

CHAPTER  XIII. 
Means  to  be  used  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  a  Congress  of  Nations  .       .  100 

CHAPTER  XIV. 
On  the  duty  of  all  men,  both  rulers  and  subjects,  to  endeavor  to  obtain 
a  Congress  of  Nations 103 

CHAPTER  XV. 
Recapitulation  and  conclusion 106 

Appendix Ill 


ADVERTISEMENT. 

As  this  Essay  is  expected  to  go  out  to  the  world  as  a  separate 
pamphlet,  or  volume,  as  well  as  to  be  bound  up  with  the  Prize  Essays 
on  a  Congress  of  Nations,  published  by  the  American  Peace  Society, 
it  is  necessary  to  notify  those  to  whom  it  may  come  separate  of 
this  circumstance.  Thirty-five  of  the  dissertations,  out  of  a  greater 
number — I  believe  about  forty — which  were  handed  in  for  the  purpose 
of  claiming  the  reward  offered  by  two  gentlemen  of  New  York, 
through  the  American  Peace  Society,  have  been  read  by  me.  Others 
have  been  withdrawn,  some  of  which  have  been  published  by  the 
authors  of  them.  The  Society  concluded  to  accept  the  advice  of 
the  first  committee  of  award, — the  Hon.  Messrs.  Story,  Wirt  and 
Calhoun, — to  publish  the  five  best  Essays ;  as  the  second  committee, 
consisting  of  Ex-president  Adams,  Chancellor  Kent  and  the  Hon. 
Daniel  Webster,  did  not  agree  on  the  successful  competitor.  The 
Peace  Society  appointed  a  committee  of  their  own  body  to  select 
five  of  the  best  dissertations  for  publication,  having  an  eye  to  the 
awards  of  the  abovenamed  committees,  and  directed  me  to  add  a 
sixth,  taking  all  the  matter  from  the  rejected  Essays  worth 
preserving,  which  is  not  contained  in  the  Essays  selected  for 
publication.  I  have  attended  to  this  duty.  In  reading  over  these 
Essays,  I  noted  down  'every  thought  worth  preserving ;  and  I  pre- 
sent them  here  in  a  body,  with  such  reflections,  additions  and  historical 
facts  as  occurred  to  me  during  my  labor;  so  that  my  claim  to  orig- 
inality, in  this  production,  rests  much  on  the  thought  of  separating 
the  subject  into  two  distinct  parts,  viz.,  1st.  A  congress  of  am- 
bassadors from  all  those  Christian  and  civilized  nations  who  should 
choose  to  send  them,  for  the  purpose  of  settling  the  principles  of 
international  law  by  compact  and  agreement,  of  the  nature  of  a 
mutual  treaty,  and  also  of  devising  and  promoting  plans  for  the 
preservation  of  peace,  and  meliorating  the  condition  of  man.  2d. 
A  court  of  nations,  composed  of  the  most  able  civilians  in  the 
world,  to  arbitrate  or  judge  such  cases  as  should  be  brought  before 

xlix 


1  ADVERTISEMENT 

it,  bj  the  mutual  consent  of  two  or  more  contending  nations:  thus 
dividing  entirely  the  diplomatic  from  the  judicial  functions,  which 
require  such  different,  not  to  say  opposite,  characters  in  the  exercise 
of  their  functions.  I  consider  the  Congress  as  the  legislature,  and 
the  Court  as  the  judiciary,  in  the  government  of  nations,  leaving  the 
functions  of  the  executive  with  public  opinion,  "  the  queen  of  the 
world."  This  division  I  have  never  seen  in  any  essay  or  plan  for 
a  congress  or  diet  of  independent  nations,  either  ancient  or  modem ; 
and  I  believe  it  will  obviate  all  the  objections  which  have  been 
heretofore  made  to  such  a  plan. 

I  advise  all  persons,  into  whose  hand  this  Essay  may  fall,  to 
purchase  the  volume  of  Prize  Essays,  published  by  the  American 
Peace  Society,  for  they  will  find  them,  in  many  respects,  very  far 
superior  to  this  in  style  and  richness  of  matter,  both  historical 
and  original;  and  they  will  also  assist  the  Society,  now  burthened 
with  debt,  which  will  be  increased  by  the  publication  of  these  Essays, 
unless  they  meet  with  a  ready  sale. 

William  Ladd. 

Boston,  Febeuaey,  1840. 


ESSAY. 

♦5  *CHAPTER   I. 

INTRODUCTION  AND  GENEEAL  EEMAEKS. 

1.  Self-love — 2.  Man  a  social  being — 3.  Man  as  a  rational  being  seeks  alliance 
of  others — i.  Of  Conquest — 5.  Of  voluntary  government — 6.  Safety  the  chief 
object  of  government — 7.  Nations  moral  persons — 8.  International  Law  neces- 
sary for  their  government — 9.  Difficulties  anticipated — 10.  Extent  of  the  or- 
ganization— 11.  Want  of  power  to  enforce  decrees. 

1.  Self-love  is  a  passion  universally  predominant  in  the 
animal,  man.  It  was  born  with  him,  is  inherent  in  his 
natm*e,  and  is  the  mainspring  of  all  his  actions,  while  he 
continues  in  his  natural  state.  In  this  state,  man  seeks  the 
gratification  of  his  animal  passions,  without  regard  to  the 
welfare  of  others.  As  this  is  the  case  with  every  man  in  a 
state  of  nature,  it  follows,  that  every  man  is  liable  to  come 
into  conflict  with  every  other  man  in  his  immediate  neigh- 
borhood,  and  to  resort  to  violence  to  gratify  his  lusts 

and  passions.  Hence,  as  was  observed  by  Hobbes, 
*  6       "  the  *  natural  state  of  man  is  war,"  in  which  the 

strong  and  the  cunning  will  always  obtain  the 
mastery  over  the  weak  and  unsuspecting;  and  will  rob, 
murder,  and  enslave  them,  whenever  they  think  it  expedient. 

2.  But  man  is  a  social  being,  and  he  feels  it  not  good  for 
him  to  be  alone;  and  he  chooses  to  himself  a  partner  of  his 
joys  and  sorrows,  whom,  by  force,  fraud,  or  persuasion,  he 
obtains.  A  family  of  children  is  the  consequence.  The 
parents  are  bound  to  one  another,  and  to  their  cliildren,  by 
a  softer,  but  as  strong,  a  tie  as  self-love  —  or  rather  it  is  self- 


2  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

love  extended  to  their  partner  and  to  their  children.  Hence 
come  families,  the  germs  of  nations,  bound  together  by 
affection  to  their  clan,  and  governed  by  patriarchal  author- 
ity, until  they  find  it  convenient  or  necessary  to  part,  and 
each  individual  becomes  the  germ  of  a  new  family,  tribe, 
or  nation. 

8.  But  man  is  also  a  rational  animal,  and  he  soon  per- 
ceives that  there  are  enjoyments  which  can  more  easily  be 
procured  by  persuasion,  than  by  force;  and  that  though  he 
may  be  stronger  than  another  individual,  two  other  indi- 
viduals may  be  stronger  than  he  —  that  he  cannot  always  be 
on  the  watch  to  preserve  the  property  he  has  acquired  by  rob- 
bery, the  chase,  or  agriculture  —  and  that  he  also  is  subject 
to  inconvenience  from  the  theft,  or  violence,  of  others ;  hence 
he  soon  finds  himself  compelled  to  make  a  certain  convention, 
or  agreement,  with  others,  both  inferiors  and  equals,  both  as 
an  individual  and  as  the  head  of  a  tribe.  These  compacts 
are  guaranteed  by  religion,  public  opinion,  and  cer- 
*  7  tain  undefined  laws  of  honor  *  dependent  on  them ; 
but  most  of  all  by  a  general  perception  of  the 
truth,  that  the  happiness  of  the  whole  is  best  promoted  by 
the  subservience  of  the  interests  of  the  few  to  the  interests 
of  the  many. 

4.  It  would  be  pleasing  to  the  philantliropist,  if  he  could 
conceive  that  the  ways  abovementioned  were  the  only  ones 
in  which  states  have  been  formed;  but,  unhappily,  it  is  not 
so.  From  the  first  ages,  Nimrods,  mighty  men  of  war,  by 
force  or  fraud,  have  enslaved  other  men,  held  them  in 
bondage  and  vassalage,  and  been  obliged  to  make  laws  for 
them,  which  have  continued,  with  more  or  less  severity,  until 
those  slaves  and  vassals  have  become  more  enlightened,  and 
taken  a  part,  or  the  whole,  of  the  government  into  their 
own  hands. 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  8 

5.  In  some  few  cases,  the  people,  feeling  their  incompe- 
tency to  govern  themselves,  have  been  willing  to  continue 
under  the  paternal  government  of  the  elder  branch  of  the 
family,  and  hereditary  monarchy,  at  times  accompanied  with 
a  change  in  the  reigning  family,  has  followed.  Under  these 
various  forms  of  government,  man  has  been  infinitely  hap- 
pier, than  he  would  have  been  in  a  state  of  nature  and 
anarchy;  and  generally  nations  have,  naturally  and  without 
consultation,  taken  that  form  of  government  best  adapted 
to  the  people.  For  many  nations,  absolute  monarchy  is 
best,  for  some  a  limited  monarchy,  for  a  few  a  republican 
form,  and  for  a  few  very  small  states,  even  a  pure  democracy 
is  perhaps  the  best;  but  the  different  features  of  all  these 
forms  of  government  are  variously  combined  in  infinite 
diversity,  according  to  the  genius  of  the  people  gov- 
erned. 
*  8  *  6.  The  chief  end  and  purpose  of  government  is,  to 

prevent  one  person  from  injuring  another;  so  that 
every  one  may  sit  under  his  own  vine  and  fig-tree,  with  none 
to  molest  or  make  him  afraid.  This  is  the  object  of  all  our 
laws,  and  all  the  expensive  machinery  of  government, 
which  has  taken  care  that  no  individual  should  molest  his 
neighbor;  and  when  disputes  arise,  so  far  from  leaving  each 
individual  to  take  his  cause  into  his  own  hands,  govern- 
ments have  provided  courts  of  law  to  decide  the  controversy. 
In  many  governments,  the  legislative  has  been  entirely  sepa- 
rated from  the  judicial  power,  and  the  executive  from  both. 
In  all  of  them,  the  impartiality  of  the  judicial  power  has 
been  in  a  ratio  equal  to  the  knowledge  and  virtue  of  the 
people.  In  some  of  these  governments,  laws  have  been  made, 
not  only  for  securing  the  rights  of  private  individuals,  but 
also  of  bodies  corporate,  and  even  of  component  parts  of 
the  empire  which  are  for  many  purposes  independent.    No 


4  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

such  thing  has  yet  been  done  with  respect  to  nations, 
though  courts  have  been  instituted,  to  decide  controversies 
which  have  arisen  between  two  or  more  members  of  the  same 
confederacy  of  nations.  Our  object  is  to  go  one  step 
further,  and  appoint  a  court,  by  which  contests  between 
nations  shall  be  settled,  without  resort  to  arms,  when  any 
such  controversy  shall  be  brought,  by  mutual  consent, 
before  it. 

7.  By  consent  of  all  writers  on  international  law,  nations 
are  considered  as  individual,  moral  persons,  perfectly  equal 

and  independent  of  one  another.  Therefore,  the 
*  9       same  moral  laws  which  ought  to  govern  *  individuals, 

ought  to  govern  nations.  What  is  wrong  for  an 
individual,  is  wrong  for  a  nation.  In  the  intercourse  of 
these  moral  persons,  disputes  will  arise,  injuries  will  be 
done,  retaliation  and  revenge  will  follow,  and,  unless  some 
means  of  terminating  their  disputes  by  amicable  and 
rational  methods  are  devised,  war  will  be  the  consequence. 
There  are  three  ways  already  in  use,  whereby  war  may  be 
avoided.  The  first  is,  by  cultivating  a  spirit  of  peace,  which 
is  the  spirit  of  the  gospel,  and  is  as  much  the  duty  of 
nations  as  it  is  of  individuals;  by  this  means,  injuries, 
especially  if  not  very  grievous,  will  be  overlooked,  or  be 
passed  by  with  a  bare  remonstrance,  and  an  appeal  to  the 
moral  sense  of  the  nation  that  has  inflicted  the  injury.  The 
second  is,  by  negotiation,  where  the  subject  in  dispute  is 
formally  discussed  and  settled  by  reparation  or  compromise. 
If  this  cannot  be  done,  the  next  step  is  mediation  of  a 
friendly  power,  accompanied  with  arbitration  and  the 
acceptance  of  the  award.  The  last  resort  is  war,  which 
commonly  increases,  instead  of  remedying  the  evil.  We 
propose  a  plan  more  likely  to  procure  justice  than  either 
of  these. 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  5 

8.  As  government  is  an  ordinance  of  God,  necessary  for 
the  safety,  happiness  and  improvement  of  the  human  race, 
and  as  it  is  absolutely  necessary  for  the  peace  of  society, 
that  when  the  selfish  passions  of  man  come  in  conflict,  the 
judgment  of  the  case  should  not  be  left  with  the  individuals 
concerned,    but   with    some   impartial   tribunal;    so   it   is 

equally  necessary,  for  the  peace  and  happiness  of 
*  10     mankind,  that  when  the  *  selfish  passions  of  nations 

come  in  conflict,  the  decision  of  the  case  should  not 
be  left  with  an  individual  nation  concerned,  but  should  be 
referred  to  some  great  tribunal,  that  should  give  a  verdict 
on  the  affairs  of  nations,  in  the  same  manner  that  a  civil 
court  decides  the  disputes  of  individuals.  If  it  was  desir- 
able for  individuals,  bodies  politic,  and  small  independent 
tribes,  to  unite  in  some  general  system  of  jurisprudence, 
why  is  it  not  equally  desirable  for  large  tribes  and  nations 
to  do  the  same? 

9.  There  are  two  difficulties  in  the  way,  which  require 
our  attention;  but  it  will  be  found  that  they  may  as  easily 
be  removed  as  were  the  difficulties  attending  the  commence- 
ment and  advancement  of  institutions  for  the  adjudication  of 
difficulties  arising  between  individuals.  The  first  of  these 
is  the  want  of  a  body  of  men  to  enact  and  promulgate  laws 
for  the  government  of  nations;  the  other  is  the  want  of  a 
physical  force  to  carry  the  decisions  of  a  court  of  nations 
into  execution. 

10.  As  to  the  first  difficulty,  the  formation  of  what  we 
call  a  Congress  of  Nations  is  no  greater  than  the  assem- 
bling of  any  convention  for  the  enactment  of  laws,  by  mu- 
tual consent,  for  the  government  of  the  parties  represented. 
It  is  not  expected,  that  such  a  combination  of  powers 
would  be  of  a  very  great  geographical  extent,  as  it  could 
only  embrace  the  most  civilized,  enlightened,  and  Christian 


6  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

nations  that  could  be  represented  at  one  great  diet,  by 

their  ambassadors;  and  there  form  a  league  and  covenant, 

each   with   every   one,   and   every   one    with   each, 

*  11      that  *  they  would,  in  their  future  intercourse,  be 

governed  by  the  laws  enacted  by  the  diet  or  congress 
and  ratified  by  the  governments  of  all  the  powers  so  repre- 
sented. The  world  has  now  a  kind  of  code  of  voluntary 
international  law,  laid  down  by  eminent  civilians,  which  is, 
for  the  most  part,  respected,  but  which  is  not  confirmed,  by 
any  compact  or  agreement,  and  on  which  the  authors  them- 
selves often  differ,  so  that  what  is  now  called  the  law  of 
nations,  is  but  little  better  than  a  nose  of  wax,  which  may 
be  twisted  either  way,  to  suit  the  purposes  of  dominant 
nations. 

11.  The  magnitude  of  the  second  difficulty  is  apparently 
greater,  but  it  will  be  much  reduced  by  reflection.  It  is 
true,  it  would  not  comport  with  the  peace  and  happiness 
of  mankind,  to  invest  rulers  with  the  power  to  compel  an 
acquiescence  in  the  decisions  of  a  Couet  of  Nations  by 
arms ;  but  if  we  look  into  the  condition  of  man  in  a  state  of 
civilization,  it  will  be  found,  that  where  one  man  obeys  the 
laws  for  fear  of  the  sword  of  the  magistrate,  an  hundred 
obey  them  through  fear  of  public  opinion.  But  I  would 
further  observe,  1st,  that  public  opinion  has  not  yet  been 
made  to  bear  on  nations,  and  little  or  no  means  have  hitherto 
been  used  to  make  it  bear  on  them.  The  plan  we  propose 
is  one  of  the  means  eminently  adapted  to  make  it  bear  on 
them,  as  will  be  shown  in  the  sequel.  2.  We  do  not  know 
what  means  the  congregated  wisdom  of  Christendom  may 
devise  for  the  enforcement  of  the  decisions  of  a  court  of 
nations,  by  so  regulating  the  intercourse  of  nations  that  a 

refractory  member  might  be  made  to  feel  that  its 

*  12     duty  *  is  its  true  interest.    3.  As  it  is  not  intended 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  7 

that  this  court  of  nations  shall  judge  any  cases  but  such 
as  are  submitted  to  it  by  the  mutual  consent  of  both 
parties  concerned,  its  decisions  will  have  as  much  to  enforce 
them  as  the  decisions  of  an  individual  imipire,  which  has 
so  often  settled  disputes  between  nations.  4.  Though  at 
the  commencement  of  this  system,  its  success  may  not  be 
so  great  as  is  desirable,  yet,  as  moral  power  is  every  day 
increasing  in  a  geometrical  ratio,  it  will  finally  take  the 
place  of  all  wars  between  civilized  and  Christian  nations, 
much  in  the  same  manner  as  a  civil  court  has  taken  the  place 
of  the  judicial  combat.  With  these  preliminaries  we  now 
proceed  to  a  more  minute  consideration  of  a  Congress  and 
a  Court  of  Nations,  each  by  itself. 


*13  ♦CHAPTER    II. 

ON   THE  OEGANIZATION  OF  THE   PROPOSED   CONGRESS  OF 

NATIONS. 

1.  A  Congress  of  Nations  a  separate  thing  from  a  Court  of  Nations — 2.  Or- 
ganization  of  the  Congress — 3.  Formation  of  a  Code  of  International  Law — 
4.  Progress  necessarily  slow — 5.  No  concern  with  internal  affairs  of  Nations. 

1.  Our  plan  is  composed  of  two  parts,  viz.,  a  Congress 
of  Nations  and  a  Court  of  Nations,  either  of  which  might 
exist  without  the  other,  but  they  would  tend  much  more 
to  the  happiness  of  mankind  if  united  in  one  plan,  though 
not  in  one  body.  A  congress  of  ambassadors  from  all  those 
Christian  and  civilized  nations  who  should  choose  to  imite 
in  the  measure,  is  highly  desirable  to  fix  the  fluctuating  and 
various  points  of  international  law,  by  the  consent  of  all 
the  parties  represented,  making  the  law  of  nations  so  plain 
that  a  court  composed  of  the  most  eminent  jurists  of  the 
countries  represented  at  the  Congress,  could  easily  apply 
those  principles  to  any  particular  case  brought  before  them. 
Such  a  congress  would  provide  for  the  organization  of  such 
a  court;  but  they  would  not  constitute  that  court;  which 
would  be  permanent,  like  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  while  the  Congress  would  be  transient  or  periodical, 
with  a  change  of  members  like  the  Congress  or  Senate  of 

the  United  States.  It  is  not  proposed  that  the  legis- 
*  14)     lative  and  judiciary  bodies  shall  be  *  united.     The 

Congress  of  Nations,  therefore,  is  one  body,  and  the 
creator  of  the  Court  of  Nations,  which  is  another  distinct 
body.     Any   nation  represented   at   the   Congress   might 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  9 

change  its  delegates  as  often  as  it  pleased,  like  other  ambas- 
sadors, but  the  members  of  the  com*t  would  hold  their  offices 
during  good  behaviour. 

2.  The  Congress  of  Nations  would  be  organized  by  a 
convention,  composed  of  ambassadors  from  all  those  Chris- 
tian or  civilized  nations  who  should  concur  in  the  measure, 
each  nation  having  one  vote,  however  numerous  may  be  the 
ambassadors  sent  to  the  convention.  This  convention  would 
organize  themselves  into  a  Congress  of  Nations,  by  adopting 
such  regulations  and  by-laws  as  might  appear  expedient 
to  the  majority.  Those  who  would  not  agree  with  the 
majority  would,  of  course,  have  leave  to  withdraw  from  the 
convention,  which  would  then  constitute  the  Congress  of 
Nations,  choose  its  president,  vice-presidents,  secretaries, 
clerks,  and  such  other  officers  as  they  would  see  fit.  New 
members  might  be  received,  at  any  time  subsequent  to  the 
first  organization  of  the  Congress,  by  their  embracing  the 
rules  already  adopted  and  the  nations  sending  them  adopt- 
ing the  laws  of  nations  enacted  by  the  Congress,  and  duly 
ratified  before  their  becoming  members  of  the  confedera- 
tion. 

3.  After  organization,  the  Congress  would  proceed  to  the 
consideration  of  the  first  principles  of  the  law  of  nations 

as  they  are  laid  down  by  civilians  and  agreed  to  by 
*  15  treaties,  throwing  all  the  light  which  the  *  congre- 
gated wisdom  of  the  civilized  world  contains  on  the 
principles  of  international  law,  and  applying  those  principles 
to  classes  of  individual  cases.  No  principle  would  be  estab- 
lished, unless  it  had  the  unanimous  consent  of  all  the  nations 
represented  at  the  Congress,  and  ratified  by  all  the  govern- 
ments of  those  nations,  so  that  each  and  every  principle 
would  resemble  a  treaty,  by  which  each  nation  represented 
bound  itself  to  every  other  nation  represented,  to  abide  by 


10  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

certain  expressed  principles  in  their  future  intercourse 
with  one  another;  which  agreement  or  treaty  shall  not  be 
annulled,  except  by  the  consent  of  all  the  parties  mak- 
ing it. 

4.  That  the  progress  of  such  a  Congress  would  be  very 
slow,  it  must  be  allowed;  but  so  far  from  being  the  worse, 
it  would  be  the  better  for  that,  and  more  Ukely  to  produce 
permanent  and  useful  results.  It  would  not  be  necessary 
that  each  article  of  the  compact,  thus  entered  into,  should 
be  ratified  by  the  nations  concerned,  before  the  Congress 
proceeded  to  settle  other  points;  but  the  whole,  having 
been  agreed  on  in  Congress,  could  be  submitted  to  the 
governments  represented,  and  such  points  as  should  be 
im'animously  adopted  should  be  considered  as  settled  points 
of  international  law,  and  the  remainder  left  open  for  further 
investigation;  and  thus  all  the  most  material  points  of 
international  law  would  be  for  ever  settled,  and  other  points 
put  in  a  fair  way  of  being  settled.  The  Corni;  of  Nations 
need  not  be  delayed  until  all  the  points  of  international  law 

were  settled ;  but  its  organization  might  be  one  of  the 
*  16      first  *  things  for  the  Congress  of  Nations  to  do,  and 

in  the  mean  time,  the  Court  of  Nations  might  decide 
cases  brought  before  it  on  principles  generally  known  and 
acknowledged. 

5.  The  Congress  of  Nations  is  to  have  nothing  to  do 
with  the  internal  affairs  of  nations,  or  with  insurrections, 
revolutions,  or  contending  factions  of  people  or  princes,  or 
with  forms  of  government,  but  solely  to  concern  themselves 
with  the  intercourse  of  nations  in  peace  and  war.  1st.  To 
define  the  rights  of  belligerents  towards  each  other;  and 
endeavor,  as  much  as  possible,  to  abate  the  horrors  of  war, 
lessen  its  frequency,  and  promote  its  termination.  2d.  To 
settle  the  rights  of  neutrals,  and  thus  abate  the  evils  which 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  11 

war  inflicts  on  those  nations  that  are  desirous  of  remaining 
in  peace.  3d.  To  agree  on  measures  of  utility  to  mankind 
in  a  state  of  peace ;  and  4th,  To  organize  a  Court  of  Nations. 
These  are  the  four  great  divisions  of  the  labors  of  the  pro- 
posed Congress  of  Nations. 


17  *CHAPTER   III. 


ON  THE  RIGHTS   OF  BELLIGERENTS   WITH   RESPECT   TO   EACH 

OTHER. 

1.  The  rights  of  belligerents  have  their  limits — 2.  The  right  to  declare  war — 
3.  Are  all  means  of  destroying  an  enemy  lawful? — 4.  Confiscation  of  private 
debts — 5.  Detention  of  the  subjects  of  an  enemy — 6.  Who  may  be  made 
prisoners  of  war? — 7.  Property  liable  to  capture — 8.  Voyages  of  discovery — 
9.  Compacts  with  an  enemy — 10.  Of  Truce — 11.  Of  Retaliation. 

1.  The  rights  of  belligerents  have  their  limits,  even  as 
they  respect  one  another.  Humanity  has  been  shocked  and 
outraged  by  excesses  committed  by  them;  and  there  is  no 
good  reason  why  nations  should  not  mutually  agree  to  frown 
on  all  the  cruelties  of  war  which  are  imnecessary  to  the 
ostensible  object  of  it.  A  nation,  by  declaring  war,  makes 
every  subject  of  the  country  against  whom  war  is  declared, 
technically  speaking,  an  enemy  —  hostis,  a  national  enemy, 
not  inimicus,  or  a  personal  enemy.  It  would  be  hard  to 
show  that  the  gospel  has  made  any  difference ;  but  man  has ; 
and  a  person  may  be  an  enemy,  according  to  the  law  of 
nations,  who  is  a  friend  and  brother,  according  to  the  law 
of  God.  If  nations  will  continue  to  make  war,  they  should 
endeavor  to  violate  the  law  of  Gkxi  as  little  as  possible,  and 
put  all  practicable  bounds  to  savage  exhibitions  of  na- 
tional   enmity.      The    rights    of    belligerents    over    their 

enemies  ought  to  be  regulated  by  acknowledged 
*  17     principles;  *  and  the  condition  of  prisoners  of  war 

and  of  the  vanquished  should  be,  as  much  as  possible, 
ameliorated.     Vattel  holds  that  prisoners  of  war  may  be 

12 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  18 

made  slaves,  when  we  may  lawfully  kill  them.*  Burlamaqui 
thinks  we  may  kill  them  in  "  cases  of  necessity."  t  Formerly 
prisoners  of  war  were  enslaved  or  put  to  death  without 
disgrace,  and  until  a  very  late  date,  viz.,  the  wars  between 
Charles  XII  of  Sweden,  and  Peter  the  great,  of  Russia, 
prisoners  were  made  slaves  during  the  war;  but  the  increased 
light  of  Christianity  leaves  but  little  to  be  done  on  this 
subject. 

2.  The  question  should  be  settled  by  the  Congress, 
Whether  a  nation,  unless  attacked,  has  a  right  to  declare  war 
against  another  nation,  or  make  reprisals,  until  it  has 
reSorted  to  all  other  means  of  obtaining  justice,  such  as 
negotiation,  and  an  offer  to  leave  the  dispute  to  arbitration, 
or  to  cast  lots,  or  settle  the  dispute  by  the  ordeal  of  battle 
by  two  or  more  champions?  The  last  two  modes  of  settling 
international  difficulties  are  not  seriously  proposed  in  this 
age  of  light  and  good  feeling,  but  only  to  show,  that,  how- 
ever absurd  they  are  in  themselves,  they  are  alto- 
gether better  for  both  the  parties  concerned,  and  for  the 
world  at  large,  than  the  greater  absurdity  of  war,  and 
just  as  likely  to  do  justice  to  the  parties,  at  a  much 
less  expense  of  life  and  money.  Many  other  questions 
should  be  solved  by  the  Congress,  such  as  the  fol- 
lowing: 
*  18  *  3.  Are  all  means  of  destroying  an  enemy  lawful? 
Is  it  lawful  to  poison  an  enemy's  food,  or  his  springs 
and  wells  of  water,  —  to  use  poisoned  arms,  to  fire  at  him 
such  missiles  as  broken  glass  bottles  and  rusty  nails,  which 
inflict  almost  incurable  wounds,  without  killing,  —  to  make 
use  of  torpedoes,  fireships,  mines,  &c.  Is  assassination  to  be 
allowed;  and  under  what  circumstances?  Burlamaqui 
allows  of  assassination  of  an  enemy  under  certain  circum- 

*  See  his   Law  of   Nations,   lib.   iii,   §  152.     f  Burlamaqui,  part  3,  c.  v,  §  8. 


14  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

stances.*  He  reasons  correctly  and  ingeniously,  when  he 
says,  "  If  we  may  employ  a  great  number  of  men  to  kill  an 
enemy,  we  may  certainly  employ  a  less  number,"  though 
he  doubts  whether  we  may  employ  one  of  the  enemy's 
subjects  to  do  it  by  falsehood  and  treason.  But  what  is 
employing  deserters,  but  hiring  men  to  kill  their  compa- 
triots; and  what  are  falsehood  and  treason,  but  stratagems 
of  war?  It  is  not  morally  worse  to  cut  off  an  enemy  by 
assassination,  than  by  ambuscade,  torpedo,  or  mine,  and 
if  I  may  do  it  by  hiring  traitors  and  deserters  in  masses, 
why  may  I  not  do  it  by  a  single  traitor  or  deserter?  How 
many  allow  of  employing  deserters  or  traitors  in  masses, 
who  would  shudder  at  the  thought  of  employing  a  single 
deserter  to  do  similar  things  I  By  beginning  to  prohibit 
the  employing  of  single  deserters  or  traitors.  Christian 
nations  may,  at  length,  come  to  prohibit  the  employment  of 
deserters  and  traitors  in  masses. 

4.  Has   a  nation,   by   declaring  war,   a   right  to   con- 

fiscate private  debts  due  from  the  enemy  to  its 
*  20     own  *  subjects?    During  the  war  of  the  American 

revolution,  the  Americans  confiscated  the  private 
debts  due  from  American  to  British  subjects;  and  as  a  bribe 
to  betray  the  debts,  a  part  of  the  spoils  was  offered  to  the 
debtors.  This  principle  was  afterward  abandoned,  and  in 
the  treaty  of  peace,  indemnity  to  the  British  merchants  was 
promised.  Vattel  thinks  that  a  belligerent  has  a  right  to 
confiscate  such  debts,  or  at  least  to  detain  the  payment  dur- 
ing the  war.t  A  Congress  of  Nations  should  settle  this 
question. 

5.  Has  a  nation  a  right,  on  going  to  war,  to  detain  the 
subjects  of  an  enemy,  either  civil  or  military,  who  may 
happen  to  be  in  its  territory;  and  to  what  extent  shall  that 

•  Burlamaqui,  part  4,  c.  vi,  §  15.  f  Law  of  Nations,  book  3,  §  77. 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  15 

right  be  exercised?  —  on  the  military  only,  or  on  civilians 
also?  —  on  men  only,  or  on  women  and  children  also,  and 
on  property?  On  the  breaking  out  of  war  after  the  short 
peace  of  Amiens,  Napoleon  detained  the  British  subjects 
that  were  found  in  France,  as  prisoners  of  war,  but  how  far 
he  carried  this  principle,  I  do  not  know.  His  motives 
probably  were  to  draw  money,  for  their  support,  from 
England. 

6.  Who  shall  be  considered  as  combatants  and  liable  to 
be  made  prisoners  of  war?  Formerly  all  the  subjects  of 
an  enemy  were  considered  combatants,  and  alike  liable  to 
be  made  prisoners  of  war  and  to  be  murdered,  or  sold  into 
slavery.  Civilized  society,  under  the  mild  influence  of  Chris- 
tianity, has  much  ameliorated  the  condition  of  conquered 

enemies,  and  but  very  few,  except  such  as  are  found 
*  21     with  arms  in  *  their  hands,  are  excluded  from  the  list 

of  non-combatants.  It  is  very  desirable  to  extend 
this  list,  so  as  to  include  the  man  who  catches  whales,  as  well 
as  the  man  who  catches  smaller  fishes  —  the  man  who  ploughs 
the  ocean  on  his  own  peaceful  business,  as  well  as  the  man 
who  ploughs  the  field. 

7.  What  property  of  an  enemy  shall  be  liable  to  capture? 
Formerly  all  property,  both  public  and  private,  real  and 
personal,  became  the  property  of  the  captor.  Now,  private 
property  on  shore  is  respected,  and  property  afloat  only  is 
captured.  A  merchant  vessel,  on  the  stocks,  is  not  liable  to 
capture ;  on  the  water  she  is,  except  small  vessels  employed 
in  the  fisheries.  Cicero  observes,  that  it  is  not  contrary  to 
the  law  of  nations  to  plunder  a  person  whom  we  may  law- 
fully kill.*  But  if  we  may  plunder  those  only  whom  we 
may  lawfully  kill,  then  we  should  no  longer  plunder  the 
peaceful  merchant.    May  a  conqueror  seize  private  landed 

*  Cicero,  De  Officiis,  lib.  3,  c.  vi. 


16  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

estate  as  the  spoils  of  war?  May  churches  and  public 
property  of  a  civil  nature  be  plundered  by  an  enemy? 
Burlamaqui  allows  it;  but  it  has  become  a  reproach  to  any 
people  to  do  it.  The  burning  of  the  capitol  at  Washington 
was  justified  by  the  British  on  the  plea  of  retahation;  and 
even,  on  this  plea,  they  begin  to  be  ashamed  of  it. 

8.  A  Congress  of  Nations  might  settle  what  protection 
should  be  afforded  to  the  ships  of  enemies  making  voyages 

of  discovery.  The  American  government,  and,  I 
*  22      believe,  the  French  also,  agreed  not  to  *  molest  the 

squadron  of  Captain  Cook.  Missionary  stations, 
settlements  on  barbarous  coasts  for  benevolent  purposes, 
light-houses,  buoys,  beacons,  and  even  the  military  hospitals 
of  the  enemy,  should  be  respected. 

9.  Is  a  compact  made  with  an  enemy  at  an  end  as  soon 
as  war  is  declared?  Grotius  is  of  opinion  that  contracts 
made  with  an  enemy  are  binding.    Puffendorf  doubts  it. 

10.  What  is  the  nature  of  a  truce?  and  what  formalities 
are  necessary  at  its  commencement  and  its  end?  What 
rights  does  a  belligerent  give  up  by  a  truce?  and  what  does 
he  retain?  What  rights  belong  to  heralds,  flags  of  truce 
and  cartels?  How  may  intercourse  be  carried  on  between 
belligerents?  What  security  does  a  safe  conduct  concede? 
What  is  the  nature  of  parole,  ransom,  and  the  giving  of 
hostages?  Even  in  this  day  of  comparative  light,  it  may 
be  well  to  put  some  limits  to  the  right  which  a  belligerent 
has  over  the  person  of  his  enemy  by  the  general  consent 
and  treaty  stipulations  of  all  Christian  nations,  each  being 
bound  to  all;  and  a  Congress  of  Nations  is  the  only  place 
where  such  a  compact  can  be  executed. 

11.  Cannot  something  be  done  to  meliorate  the  barbarous 
custom  of  retortion  and  retaliation;  or  at  least  to  regulate 
it?     How  are  spies,   deserters,   and  prisoners   who  have 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  17 

violated  their  parole  to  be  treated?  Is  it  not  possible  to 
put  some  limit  to  the  power  of  a  belligerent  over  the 
*  23  life  of  his  enemy?  Is  it  allowable,  *  under  any 
circumstances,  to  kill  unresisting  persons,  who  have 
been  guilty  of  no  offence  but  being  made  enemies  by 
proclamation?  There  is  reason  to  hope,  that  much  may  be 
done  to  moderate  the  severity  of  war  in  all  these  particulars, 
in  a  body  representing  the  congregated  wisdom  of  Christen- 
dom; and  as  the  judicial  combat  gradually  gave  place  to 
the  grand  assize,  when  the  follies  and  cruelties  of  the  ordeal 
by  battle  were  exposed  and  mitigated,  so  the  ordeal  of  war 
may  gradually  give  place  to  a  court  of  nations. 


♦24  ♦CHAPTER   IV. 

ON  CEETAIN  BIGHTS  OF  BELLIGERENTS  WHICH  MAY  AFFECT 

NEUTRALS  ALSO. 

1.  The  rights  of  conquest — 2.  Of  Expatriation — 3.  Privateering— -4.  Neutrals  found 

in  an  enemy's  camp. 

1.  Under  this  head  there  is  one  very  important  question 
to  be  settled  by  a  Congress  of  Nations,  viz.,  How  long  shall 
a  territory  remain  in  possession  of  the  conqueror  before  it 
shall  be  considered  as  his  own,  so  that  he  may  convey  it 
away  to  another  nation,  and  for  ever  cut  off  the  right  of 
the  former  owner?  One  would  naturally  suppose,  that 
when  a  treaty  of  peace  is  ratified,  ceding  the  conquered  or 
disputed  territory,  the  right  of  the  former  possessor  would 
for  ever  cease;  but  this  doctrine  is  disputed,  and  some 
Americans  have  hinted  at  a  claim  to  the  western  coast  of 
North  America,  on  the  ground  that  its  relinquishment  to 
England  by  Spain,  was  the  effect  of  compulsion;  and  that 
since  the  purchase  of  Louisiana  and  all  which  belonged  to 
it,  we  stand  in  the  place  of  Spain  with  respect  to  the 
north-west  coast  of  America,  and  have  a  right  to  claim  it, 
as  soon  as  we  are  strong  enough.  We  ought,  however,  to 
remember,  that  the  cession  of  Louisiana  to  France,  from 
whom  we  bought  it,  was  also  the  effect  of  compulsion,  and 
Spain  would  have  an  equal  right  to  reclaim  the  whole 
♦  25  from  us.  ♦  The  American  forces  in  Georgia  were 
authorized  by  government  to  receive  Amelia  Island 
in  East  Florida  from  whomever  should  be  in  possession  of 
it.    If  we  had  received  Texas  into  our  Union,  would  it  have 

18 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  19 

been  consistent  with  the  existing  law  of  nations?  The 
principles  on  which  such  things  should  be  regulated,  can 
only  be  settled  by  a  Congress  of  Nations. 

2.  It  is  highly  important  to  the  peace  of  the  world  in 
general,  and  of  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  of 
America  in  particular,  that  the  right  of  expatriation  should 
be  better  understood  than  it  is  now.  The  American 
government  claims  the  right  of  naturalizing  foreigners  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  affect  their  allegiance  to  their  native 
country.  During  the  late  wars  in  Europe,  it  was  stated  by 
a  committee  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  that 
6257  Americans  had  been  impressed  into  the  navy  of  Great 
Britain;  but  what  proportion  of  them  were  natives  of  that 
power,  naturalized  here,  the  committee  do  not  state.  The 
subject  of  impressment  was  the  principal  cause  of  the  last 
war  between  Great  Britain  and  America,  though  Great 
Britain  had  always  disclaimed  the  right  of  impressing  native 
Americans.  Before  another  war  breaks  out  in  Europe,  this 
principle  of  expatriation  should  be  settled.  Some  may  think 
that  this  article  would  come  better  in  the  next  chapter;  but 
though  the  settlement  of  this  question  is  of  great  importance 
with  respect  to  neutrals  generally,  and  to  Great  Britain 
and  America  in  particular;  to  all  the  rest  of  the  world,  it 
is   of  great   importance   as   it  respects   belligerents   also. 

Certainly  a  nation  has  a  natural  right  to  deal  with  her 
*  26     own  subjects  *  as  she  may  think  proper,  and  a 

Congress  or  Court  of  Nations  would  not  interfere; 
but  the  great  question  is.  Who  are  her  own  subjects?  In 
settling  this  question,  the  United  States  are  at  variance  with 
almost  all  the  rest  of  the  world,  and  the  settlement  of  the 
question,  —  whether  a  man  has  a  right  to  expatriate  himself 
or  not,  —  is  of  great  importance  to  us,  not  only  as  a  neutral, 
but  as  a  belligerent.    Having  a  great  number  of  naturalized 


20  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

foreigners  among  us,  and  our  army  being  composed,  in  a 
great  measure,  of  such  characters,  it  is  important  for  us  to 
know  whether  we  ought  to  retaliate,  if  any  of  them,  taken 
fighting  against  their  native  country,  should  be  condemned 
to  death,  and  whether,  by  the  present  law  of  nations  and 
general  usage,  we  should  have  a  right  to  put  to  death 
Americans  only,  taken  in  arms  against  this  country,  or  any 
other  prisoners  of  war  also.  These  important  questions  can 
never  be  settled  by  any  unauthorized  writers  on  the  law  of 
nations,  and  can  only  be  done  by  a  compact  and  agreement. 
I  think  that  Great  Britain  would  be  willing  to  relinquish 
her  assumed  right  of  searching  our  ships  for  her  seamen  on 
the  high  seas,  —  and  perhaps  in  her  own  waters  also,  —  for 
the  right  of  searching  for  slaves  under  our  flag  on  the  coast 
of  Africa,  which  right  we  now  deny. 

3.  A  Congress  of  Nations  could  settle  the  great  question, 
so  long  agitated,  whether  privateering  should  any  longer 
be  allowed  in  carrying  on  the  wars  of  civilized  and  Christian 
countries;  and  this  relic  of  barbarism  and  piracy  be  at  last 

done  away.  The  government  of  the  United  States 
*  27     has  made  great  *  endeavors  to  abolish  this  evil,  though 

with  but  little  success.  The  instructions  given,  by 
the  Congress  of  the  old  confederation,  to  our  ambassadors 
abroad,  directed  them  to  endeavor  to  procure  the  general 
abolition  of  the  practice  of  privateering.  Frederick  III  of 
Prussia  was  the  only  one  who  consented  to  give  up  the 
practice;  but  in  a  Congress  of  Nations  its  entire  abolition 
would  easily  be  effected. 

4.  Another  question,  nearly  related  to  the  last  two  is,  the 
manner  in  which  a  belligerent  nation  may  treat  the  subject 
of  a  neutral  nation,  when  found  in  an  enemy's  camp,  fleet, 
or  privateer?  By  many,  they  are  considered  pirates,  and, 
morally  speaking,  certainly  they  are  no  better.    In  the  same 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  21 

connection,  might  be  agitated  the  question,  whether,  when 
a  nation  has  offered  to  leave  its  disputes  with  another  nation 
to  the  Court  of  Nations,  and  that  other  nation  shall  refuse, 
or  having  so  referred  it,  shall  refuse  to  abide  by  the  decision, 
but  should  go  to  war  —  in  such  a  case,  may  the  subjects 
of  a  neutral  nation  engage  in  war  against  the  party  so 
offending?  If  it  were  ever  justifiable  to  take  a  part  in 
foreign  wars,  it  would  be  under  such  circumstances,  and  a 
nation  might  then  allow  its  subjects  to  engage  in  a  foreign 
war,  according  to  the  law  of  nations,  if  not  according  to  the 
law  of  God. 


♦28  ♦CHAPTER   V. 

ON  THE  RIGHTS  OF  NEUTRALS,  TO  BE  ESTABLISHED  BY  THE 
CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 

1.  Wars  often  extend  to  neutrals — 2.  Rights  of  a  neutral  flag — 3.  Neutral  flag 
covering  enemy's  property— 4.  Salvage  on  a  neutral  ship — 5.  Medicines  to  a 
blockaded  port — 6.  Of  blockade — 7.  Of  contraband  of  war — 8.  Right  of  search — 
9.  Rights  of  a  belligerent  over  the  crew  of  a  neutral — 10.  When  has  a  neutral 
the  right  to  buy  captured  goods — 11.  Neutral  transports — 12.  Trade  of  a 
neutral  in  the  manufactures  of  an  enemy — 13.  Neutral  trade  which  is  pro- 
hibited in  time  of  peace — 14.  Right  of  transition  through  a  neutral  country — 
15.  Rights  of  a  private  neutral  to  engage  in  war — 16.  The  right  of  a  nation 
or  an  individual  to  take  part  in  foreign  revolutions — 17.  Extent  of  neutral 
fights  from  the  shore — 18.  Other  subjects. 

1.  We  have  considered  the  rights  which  the  common 
consent  of  mankind  has  allowed  to  belligerents,  in  their 
conduct  to  each  other;  but  this  consent  is  far  from  being 
universal,  and  many  points  remain  to  be  settled  by  the 
concentration  of  public  opinion  in  a  Congress  of  Nations. 
We  now  come  to  consider  the  rights  which  public  opinion 
has  generally  given  to  neutrals,  on  many  points  on  which 
there  is  yet  a  considerable  difference  of  opinion,  not  only 
in  the  world  at  large,  but  also  among  the  writers  on 
international  law.  It  is  owing  to  this  imcertainty,  that  when 
two  powerful  nations  go  to  war  with  one  another, 
almost  all  the  nations  of  Christendom  are,  sooner  or 
later,  forced  into  the  contest.     If  the  rights  of  neutrals 

were  better  understood  —  especially  if  the  general 
*  29     principles,  *  which  should  regulate  the  conduct  of 

neutrals  to  belligerents  and  of  beUigerents  to 
neutrals,  were  solemnly  agreed  to  by  the  principal  powers 
of  Christendom,  assembled  in  a  Congress,  —  and  still  more 

22 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  28 

especially,  if  there  were  a  high  court  or  congress,  to  which 
injured  nations  might  appeal  for  redress,  wars  would  not 
spread  as  they  have  done,  and  would  not  be  of  long 
continuance.  Some  of  the  questions  relative  to  the  rights 
of  neutrals,  which  might  be  for  ever  settled  by  the  Congress 
of  Nations  proposed,  are  as  follows : 

2.  Shall  a  neutral  flag  cover  all  that  sails  under  it, 
provided  the  voyage  be  made  from  one  neutral  port  to 
another?  The  law  of  nature  would  seem  to  demand  this. 
The  sea  is  the  highway  of  nations,  and  a  ship  is  but  an 
extension  of  the  territory  of  the  nation  to  which  it  belongs, 
especially  on  the  high  seas,  and  until  it  comes  within  the 
territorial  jurisdiction  of  another  nation.  Hence  it  would 
appear,  that  a  belligerent  has  no  more  right  to  impede  his 
enemy  in  his  progress  from  one  neutral  nation  to  another, 
on  board  a  neutral  ship,  than  he  has  to  impede  him  in  passing 
from  one  part  of  a  neutral  country  to  another,  especially  if 
this  enemy  be  not  a  military  man.  Perhaps  some  concession 
to  the  rights  of  humanity  on  this  subject  might  be  obtained 
from  a  Congress  of  Nations. 

3.  Shall  a  neutral  flag  cover  an  enemy's  property  or 
person,  when  bound  from  a  neutral  to  a  belligerent  country, 
and  if  not,  what  shall  be  the  law  of  capture  and  detention? 

Shall  freight  be  paid  on  an  enemy's  goods  taken  out? 
*  30      Shall  this  enemy's  *  property  affect  the  neutral  ship 

and  the  rest  of  the  cargo?  Burlamaqui  is  of  opinion 
that  neutral  vessels,  having  enemies'  property  on  board,  are 
lawful  prize,  if  such  property  be  on  board  with  the  consent 
of  the  owners.  As  to  all  those  questions,  he  observes,  that, 
"  prudence  and  just  policy  require  that  sovereigns  should 
come  to  some  agreement  among  themselves,  in  order  to  avoid 
the  disputes  which  may  arise  from  these  different  causes."  * 

*  Burlamaqui's  Principles  of  Natural  and  Political  Law,  part  4,  c.  iv,  §  24. 


24  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

This  is  the  very  thing  which  we  are  aiming  at,  in  proposing 
and  advocating  a  Congress  of  Nations. 

4.  Under  what  circumstances  shall  a  neutral  ship  pay 
salvage  to  the  belligerent  who  recaptures  her  from  his 
enemy?  JMust  the  neutral  have  been  carried  infra  prcesidia 
of  the  captor  —  or  have  been  twenty-four  horn's  in  his 
possession,  and  be  loaded,  in  whole  or  in  part,  with  the 
property  of  his  enemy?  It  is  hard  to  make  a  neutral  pay 
salvage,  when  he  would  have  been  released  if  he  had  been 
carried  into  the  port  of  the  captor. 

5.  If  a  pestilence  should  break  out  in  a  blockaded  port, 
would  a  neutral  be  allowed  to  carry  medicines  to  it? 
Humanity  would  say,  yes.  I  do  not  know  what  a  Congress 
of  Nations  would  say. 

6.  What  shall  constitute  a  blockade?    Civilians  are  not 

agreed  on  this  subject.  Some  hold  that  a  port,  to  be 
*  81      blockaded,   must  be  invested  by   sea   and   *   land. 

Others  hold  a  blockade  to  be  lawful,  if  the  harbor 
only  be  guarded  by  a  blockading  squadron.  What  notice 
shall  be  given  of  the  blockade?  Is  it  sufficient  that  a 
blockade  be  published  by  proclamation,  and  neutral  nations 
warned  through  their  ministers  at  the  court  of  the  blockading 
power?  Or  shall  a  neutral  ship  be  warned  once,  at  least, 
and  within  a  certain  distance  of  the  blockaded  port,  and 
her  papers  endorsed,  before  she  shall  be  liable  to  capture  for 
breach  of  blockade?  If  a  storm  drive  away  the  blockading 
squadron,  does  the  blockade  continue  in  their  absence?  and 
shall  a  ship  which  enters  the  blockaded  port  without  warning, 
be  liable  to  be  seized  and  condenmed  on  her  coming  out? 
Shall  a  neutral  ship,  which  enters  a  belligerent  port  before 
a  blockade,  be  allowed  to  depart?  The  "  Orders  in  Council  " 
and  the  "  Berlin  and  Milan  Decrees  "  were  infringements 
on  the  ancient  law  of  blockade.    Uncertainty  on  this  subject 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  25 

is  a  fruitful  source  of  war  and  enmity.  If  the  whole  subject 
could  not  be  made  clear  by  a  Congress  of  Nations,  some 
of  the  plainest  principles  might  be  settled,  and  an 
approximation  might  be  made  to  a  clear  understanding  and 
general  agreement  on  the  whole  subject. 

7.  It  is  highly  important  that  the  list  of  articles  considered 
contraband  of  war  should  be  more  clearly  defined  than  it 
is  now,  and  considerably  reduced.  Every  article  of 
contraband  of  war  should  be  specified,   and  not  left  to 

general  rules.  Tar,  pitch,  hemp,  flax,  iron,  and  other 
*  32      articles  used  to  construct  and  fit  out  *  men-of-war, 

are  not  solely  or  principally  used  for  that  purpose, 
and  should  not,  in  their  raw  state,  be  included  in  the  list  of 
articles  considered  contraband  of  war;  while  saltpetre, 
sulphur,  and  some  other  crude  articles,  are  almost  wholly 
used  for  the  purposes  of  war.  But  it  is  of  greater  importance 
to  have  the  articles  considered  contraband  of  war  clearly 
defined,  than  the  bare  extension  or  curtailment  of  the  list 
of  contraband  articles.  It  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  a 
neutral  merchant,  sending  his  ship  to  sea  loaded,  in  whole 
or  in  part,  with  tar,  iron,  hemp,  or  flax,  to  know  whether 
he  can  ensure  his  ship  as  free  from  contraband  of  war. 
Uncertainty  on  this  point  not  only  disturbs  the  harmony 
of  nations,  but  may  be  the  cause  of  endless  lawsuits  between 
merchants  of  the  same  country  —  the  insurer  and  insured. 
It  is  impossible  for  any  writer  on  the  law  of  nations  to 
specify  what  articles  shall  be  considered  contraband  of  war. 
That  can  only  be  done  by  a  Congress  of  Nations;  and  if 
done,  it  would  dry  up  a  fruitful  source  of  war. 

8.  The  right  of  searching  neutral  ships  for  contraband  of 
war  and  enemies'  property  has  never  yet  been  clearly 
understood,  in  all  its  bearings.  Shall  the  contraband  articles, 
and  the  property  of  an  enemy  alone,  be  liable  to  confiscation? 


26  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

or  shall  the  smallest  quantity  of  naval  stores  or  enemies* 
property  authorize  the  confiscation  of  the  other  part  of  the 
cargo  and  the  ship  ?  May  a  neutral  ship  be  carried  into  the 
territory  of  a  belligerent  for  search,  or  shall  it  be  done 
at    sea    only?      Shall    freight    be    paid    on    the 

*  83     property  *  seized,  or  not?    These  questions  can  only 

be  settled  in  a  Congress  of  Nations. 

9.  Has  a  belligerent  a  right  to  take  from  a  neutral  ship, 
without  the  consent  of  her  captain,  one  of  the  crew  who  is 
neither  the  subject  nor  the  enemy  of  the  belligerent,  and 
thus  break  the  lawful  contract  of  such  seaman  with  the 
captain?  Should  it  make  any  difference,  if  the  subject  of 
the  enemy  had  been  natm^alized  in  the  country  of  the  neutral 
ship? 

10.  How  long  a  time  shall  a  captured  ship,  or  goods, 
remain  in  the  possession  of  a  belligerent,  before  a  neutral 
has  a  right  to  buy  them?  Grotius  thinks  not  until  they  are 
brought  within  the  precincts  of  the  country  of  the  captor. 
Burlamaqui  thinks  that  the  captor  has  a  right  to  sell  them 
as  soon  as  captured.* 

11.  Has  a  neutral  ship  a  right  to  transport  the  soldiers 
and  military  stores  of  a  belligerent?  If  not,  how  shall  the 
crime  be  punished ;  and  at  what  time  shall  the  ship,  so  used, 
be  free  from  capture  and  condenmation  for  the  act? 

12.  Has  a  belligerent  the  right  to  prohibit  neutrals  from 
trading  in  the  manufactures  of  an  enemy?  Under  the 
"  Berlin  and  Milan  Decrees,"  vessels  were  condemned  for 
having  on  board  English  manufactures,  and  even  for 
speaking  or  being  boarded  by  British  men-of-war.  Were 
either  of  these  causes  of  condemnation  justifiable  by  the  law 

of  nations  ? 

*  34         *  13.  Has  a  neutral  a  right  to  carry  on  a  trade  in 

*  See  Burlamaqui,  part  4,  c.  vii,  §  15,  et  acq. 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  27 

time  of  war,  which  he  is  not  allowed  in  time  of  peace? 
This  is  a  very  important  question,  for  on  it  depends  the 
legality  of  much  of  the  trade  of  neutrals.  The  difficulties  at- 
tending this  question  nearly  brought  the  United  States  into  a 
war  with  Great  Britain,  in  the  early  part  of  the  war  of  the 
French  revolution.  American  vessels  traded  directly  from 
French  colonies  in  the  West  Indies  to  France,  or  barely 
touched  at  some  American  port,  to  neutralize  their  cargo, 
without  discharging  it?  This  was  complained  of  by  the 
British  government,  and  called  out  the  famous  pamphlet 
entitled  "  War  in  Disguise,"  supposed  to  have  been  written 
under  the  direction  of  the  English  cabinet.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  *'  Navigation  Act "  of  Great  Britain  was  almost 
entirely  suspended,  and  American  vessels  were  allowed  to 
carry  almost  any  thing  to  England,  from  almost  any 
country. 

14.  Has  a  belligerent  a  right  to  pass  through  the  territory 
of  a  neutral  without  his  consent?  This  is  a  very  difficult  and 
complicated  question,  and  is  not  likely  soon  to  be  settled, 
even  in  a  Congress  of  Nations ;  but  some  approximation  may 
be  made  toward  a  settlement  of  it.  Grotius  allows  the  right, 
while  Burlamaqui  denies  it,  and  Vattel  allows  it  in  certain 
cases  and  denies  it  in  others.* 

15.  Has  a  private  subject  a  right  to  engage  in  war 

against  a  country  with  which  his  own  country  is 
*  35      at  *  peace?     It  was  laid  down  as  a  principle  by 

General  Jackson,  in  the  case  of  Arbuthnot  and 
Ambrister,  that  such  characters  should  be  treated  as  pirates, 
and  this  opinion  has  been  sanctioned  by  the  American  people. 
Is  this  principle  a  correct  one?  A  Congress  of  Nations  only 
can  settle  the  question. 

16.  The  right  of  foreign  nations  or  individuals  to  take  a 

•Vattel,  book  3,  c.  vii. 


28  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

military  part  in  the  revolutions  of  other  countries  should 
be  clearly  defined,  and  either  allowed  or  forbidden.  Not 
only  should  the  right  of  governments  be  defined,  but  the 
question  should  be  settled,  whether  a  nation  has  a  right  to 
allow  of  forces  being  raised  from  among  their  subjects  for 
such  objects.  The  world  has  been  much  in  the  dark  on  this 
subject,  and  contrary  opinions  have  prevailed,  according 
to  circumstances.  Great  Britain  has  blamed  this  country 
very  severely  because  we  have  not  prevented  our  citizens 
from  taking  part  in  the  troubles  in  Canada;  while  she  has 
openly  allowed  the  enlistment  of  soldiers,  to  take  a  part  in 
the  revolutions  in  Spain  and  Portugal,  and  in  the  American 
revolution  bought  whole  regiments  of  foreign  troops.  In 
1833,  two  hundred  and  fifty  men  were  enlisted  in  England 
for  the  war  in  Portugal,  uncertain  which  side  they  would 
take. 

17.  How  far  from  shore  shall  neutral  rights  extend? 
Some  say  to  the  distance  of  a  cannon  shot  —  some  to  the 
distance  of  a  league.  Has  a  belligerent  a  right  to  anchor 
on  a  neutral  shore,  in  order  to  blockade  his  enemy's  fleet 

in  a  neutral  harbor?  It  was  very  grievous  to  the 
*  86     Americans,  during  the  last  great  wars  *  in  Europe, 

to  have  British  men-of-war  anchor  off  our  harbors, 
and  even  in  our  very  roadsteads  blockade  French  ships  of 
war,  and  examine  every  ship  going  and  coming,  and  impress 
seamen.  Some  of  our  bays  are  more  than  two  leagues  wide. 
Has  a  belligerent  a  right  to  attack  an  enemy  in  our  bays? 

18.  There  are  many  other  subjects  relating  to  the  rights 
of  neutrals,  the  principles  of  which  ought  to  be  fixed  by 
general  consent,  in  a  time  of  peace,  while  the  public  mind 
is  unbiased  by  passing  events;  and  no  power  is  adequate 
to  this  duty  but  a  Congress  of  Nations.  Were  it  done,  many 
wars  would  be  prevented. 


*87  *CHAPTER  VI. 

ON   PRINCIPLES  AND  ACTS  OF  A  CIVIL  AND  PACIFIC   NATUEE, 

AFFECTING  THE  INTERCOURSE  OF  THE  WORLD  AND  THE 

HAPPINESS  OF  MANKIND,  TO  BE  SETTLED  AND  AGREED 

UPON  BY  A  CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 

1.  The  cooperation  of  nations  required  for  plans  of  general  utility — 2.  Rights 
of  ambassadors — 3.  Surrender  of  felons  and  debtors — 4.  Suppression  of  the 
slave  trade  and  piracy — 5.  Improvements  in  international  communication — 
6.  International  copy-rights  and  patents — 7.  Free  navigation  of  bays  and 
rivers — 8.  Rights  of  discovery  and  colonization — 9.  General  reduction  of 
military  establishments — 10.  Restoration  of  military  trophies — 11.  Other 
subjects. 

1.  There  are  many  things  of  a  pacific  and  civil  nature, 
which  require  the  cooperation  of  nations,  and  which  can  only 
be  settled  in  a  congress  of  ambassadors,  where  the  subjects 
may  be  freely  discussed  and  adjusted. 

2.  The  rights  of  ambassadors,  ministers,  envoys,  and 
consuls,  should  be  settled  in  such  a  manner  as  no  longer 
to  be  the  subject  of  international  disputes.  That  the 
persons,  domestics  and  property  of  diplomatic  agents  should 
be  exempted  from  arrest  for  debt,  admits  not  of  a  question; 
but  it  is  doubtful  how  far  such  characters  should  be  exempted 
from  the  operation  of  the  criminal  code  of  the  countries 
where  they  reside.  I  suppose  such  persons  may  be 
arrested  and  imprisoned  for  crime;  but  I  doubt  if  they 

can  be  further  punished  in  any  other  way  than  being 

*  38     sent  *  out  of  the  country  or  delivered  up  to  their  own 

government.    How  far  shall  an  ambassador's  house 

29 


80  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

be  an  asylum  for  criminals  and  debtors,  not  members  of  the 
legation  where  the  crimes  were  committed,  or  the  debts 
contracted  ? 

8.  The  surrender  of  felons  and  debtors  —  Puffendorf  is 
of  opinion,  that  felons  should  not  be  delivered  up,  imless 
there  is  a  treaty  stipulation  to  that  effect.  Now  a  Congress 
of  Nations  is  a  congress  of  ambassadors,  who  may  be 
empowered  to  make  these  treaty  stipulations.  Burlamaqui, 
however,  is  of  opinion,  that  all  felons  should  be  given  up, 
without  any  treaty  stipulations.  With  respect  to  persons, 
charged  with  political  crimes  in  time  of  civil  war  and 
commotion,  and  refugees  from  conquered  countries,  the  case 
is  more  difficult.  Nations  may  agree  to  warn  such  characters 
away,  especially  if  demanded  by  the  nation  from  whence 
they  come,  and  more  especially  if  they  should  be  reasonably 
suspected  of  forming  plots  and  conspiracies  against  their 
own  coimtry;  but  it  would  be  hard  to  give  them  up,  if 
innocent  of  any  such  thing,  at  least  until  the  excitement  in 
their  own  country  had  subsided. 

4.  A  Congress  of  Nations  is  the  only  place  where  measures 
may  be  concerted,  effectually  to  suppress  the  slave  trade 
and  piracy.  Nations,  when  represented  in  a  general 
congress,  would  more  willingly  give  up  the  slave  trade; 
and  more  willingly  allow  their  vessels  to  be  searched  for 
slaves.  Measures  could  be  agreed  on,  which  would  nearly 
put  a  stop  to  piracy ;  but  if  wars  cease,  piracy  will  cease  of 

course,  for  war  is  the  nursery  of  pirates. 
*  89  *  5.  Some  mutual  understanding  and  cooperation 
in  making  railroads  and  canals  across  the  isthmus  of 
Darien  and  Suez,  might  be  agreed  on,  and  the  erection  of 
lights  and  buoys  on  uninhabited  or  barbarous  coasts  and 
straits  much  frequented  by  civilized  nations  might  be  at- 
tempted by  this  Congress,  and  the  principles  of  salvage  on 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  81 

wrecked  property  and  vessels  abandoned  at  sea  might  be 
better  defined. 

6.  The  subjects  of  international  patents  and  copy-rights 
might  be  attended  to  by  this  Congress,  and  some  progress 
might  be  made  toward  an  international  post-office,  to  ex- 
tend all  over  the  world.  Neither  is  it  too  much  to  expect,  that 
the  time  may  come,  when  an  universal  standard  of  weights, 
measures  and  coins  will  be  settled  by  such  a  Congress. 

7.  The  general  principle  of  the  free  navigation  of  bays 
and  rivers  might  be  established  by  this  Congress,  and  thus 
many  inconveniences  and,  perhaps,  wars  saved.  It  seems 
perfectly  reasonable,  that  a  nation  possessing  one  bank  of 
a  navigable  river,  but  whose  territory  does  not  extend  quite 
to  the  ocean,  should  have  a  right  to  the  free  navigation  of 
that  river,  especially  if  she  possesses  both  of  the  banks,  but 
not  the  mouth.  It  is  true,  much  may  be  said  for  and  against 
this  principle,  and  a  Congress  of  Nations  is  the  place  in 
which  to  say  it. 

8.  The  right  of  discovery  and  colonization  has  never  yet 
been  settled.  A  want  of  a  proper  understanding  of  this 
subject  has  been  the  cause  of  many  wars. 

9.  In  a  Congress  of  Nations,  measures  could  be  agreed 

upon  for  the  reduction  of  the  vast  military 
*  40     and  *  naval  establishments  of  Christendom,  which 

are  such  an  intolerable  burden  on  the  community, 
consimiing  seven-eighths  of  the  income  of  nations.  One 
nation  keeps  up  these  immense  establishments  because 
another  does.  If  nations  would  agree  to  reduce  their 
establishments,  it  could  be  done  with  safety  and  advantage. 
If  the  number  of  ships  could  not  be  restrained,  the  size 
might  be,  and  no  nation  be  allowed  to  have  a  ship  of  war 
above  a  certain  size,  or  to  carry  more  than  a  certain  weight 
of  metal. 


82  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

10.  This  Congress  would  be  the  proper  place  to  agree  on 
the  general  restoration  of  all  military  trophies  and  captured 
standards.  The  retention  of  these  trophies,  and  the  vain- 
glorious display  of  them  in  temples  dedicated  to  the  Prince 
of  peace,  is  no  less  an  insult  to  common  sense,  than  it  is 
an  impious  desecration  of  these  solemn  temples.  It  is  a 
relic  of  heathenism,  which  ought,  long  ago,  to  have  been 
abandoned  by  all  nations  bearing  the  Christian  name.  To 
restore  these  trophies  to  the  nations  from  which  they  were 
captured,  would  be  no  less  wise  than  magnanimous.  But 
it  would  be  best  of  all,  if  some  place  were  selected,  near 
the  location  of  the  Congress  of  Nations,  where  all  the 
captured  standards  and  other  trophies  of  war,  —  except 
works  of  art,  which  should  be  restored  to  their  former 
owners,  —  should  be  piled  together  in  one  vast  heap,  and 
consumed.  It  would  be  a  burnt-offering  worthy  of  the 
cause  of  peace.  The  metallic  parts,  having  passed  the  ordeal 
of  the  fire,  might  be  coined  into  medallions,  with  suitable 
devices  and  inscriptions,  and  circulated  through  the  world. 
Something  of  this  kind  was  done  at  Madrid,  July 
*  41  1,  1823.  *  "  Agreeably  to  arrangements  made,  fifty 
non-commissioned  officers  and  veterans  of  the  French 
army,  each  carrying  one  of  the  Spanish  standards,  which, 
during  the  late  wars,  had  been  taken  by  the  French,  repaired 
to  the  palace  of  the  Regency,  and  restored  those  trophies 
to  the  Saloons  of  the  Columns.  The  ceremony  was  conducted 
with  great  pomp."  *  For  the  same  reasons,  the  names  of 
bridges,  palaces,  &c.,  which  have  been  named  from  some 
great  victory,  should  be  changed ;  and  triumphal  arches  and 
other  monuments  of  war  should  be  demolished,  and  the 
materials  taken  to  erect  hospitals,  colleges,  and  churches. 
This  appears  to  the  present  age  Utopian ;  but  it  is  no  more 

•Boston  Sentinel,  of  Sept.  8,  1823. 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  88 

Utopian  than  a  millennium,  when  men  will  beat  their  swords 
into  ploughshares  and  their  spears  into  pruning-hooks. 
Centuries  may  roll  away  before  this  grand  consummation, 
so  devoutly  to  be  wished,  will  take  place,  but  it  will  be 
done. 

11.  There  are  many  other  subjects,  of  a  pacific  and  civil 
nature,  which  might  be  discussed  in  a  Congress  of  Nations, 
and  settled,  if  advisable,  or  put  into  a  train  of  settlement. 
These  may  come  up,  from  time  to  time,  as  the  world 
advances  in  Christianity  and  civilization.  The  Congress 
might  continue  to  sit,  for  the  settlement  of  these  questions, 
so  far  as  practicable ;  but  at  any  time  of  its  session,  it  might 
take  up  the  great  subject  of  a  Court  of  Nations,  and  take 
measures  for  its  organization.  This  is  the  subject  of  the 
next  chapter. 


♦42  ♦CHAPTER   VII. 

A  COURT  OF  NATIONS  FOR  THE  PEACEFUL  ADJUDICATION  OF 

THOSE    CASES    OF    INTERNATIONAL    DIFFICULTY    WHICH 

SHOULD    BE    REFERRED    TO    IT,    BY    THE    MUTUAL 

CONSENT    OF    TWO    OR    MORE    NATIONS. 

1.  Organization — 2.  Appointment  of  members — 3.  A  majority  to  decide  dis- 
putes—4.  Rules  of  the  Court — 5.  Cases  of  disputed  boundary — 6.  To  act  as 
a  mediator — 7.  May  judge  cases  of  right  of  succession,  if  called  on  by  both 
parties — 8.  Suggest  laws  to  the  Congress — 9.  Other  things  to  be  done  by  them. 

1..  It  is  proposed  to  organize  a  Court  of  Nations,  com- 
posed of  as  many  members  as  the  Congress  of  Nations  shall 
previously  agree  upon,  say  two  from  each  of  the  powers 
represented  at  the  Congress.  The  power  of  the  court  to  be 
merely  advisory.  It  is  to  act  as  a  high  court  of  admiralty, 
but  without  its  enforcing  powers.  There  is  to  be  no  sheriff, 
or  posse,  to  enforce  its  commands.  It  is  to  take  cognizance 
only  of  such  cases  as  shall  be  referred  to  it,  by  the  free  and 
mutual  consent  of  both  parties  concerned,  like  a  chamber  of 
commerce;  and  is  to  have  no  more  power  to  enforce  its 
decisions  than  an  ecclesiastical  court  in  this  country. 

2.  The  members  of  this  court  are  to  be  appointed  by 
the  governments  represented  in  the  Congress 
♦  43  of  ♦  Nations,  and  shall  hold  their  places  according 
to  the  tenure  previously  agreed  on  in  the  Congress 
—  probably  during  good  behaviour.  Whether  they  should 
be  paid  by  the  governments  sending  them,  or  by  the  nations 
represented  in  the  Congress  conjointly,  according  to  the 
ratio  of  their  population  or  wealth,  may  be  agreed  on  in 
the  Congress.    The  court  should  organize  itself  by  choosing 

84 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  85 

a  president  and  vice-presidents  from  among  themselves,  and 
appoint  the  necessary  clerks,  secretaries,  reporters,  &c. ;  and 
they  should  hear  comisel  on  both  sides  of  the  questions  to  be 
judged.  They  might  meet  once  a  year  for  the  transaction 
of  business,  and  adjourn  to  such  time  and  place  as  they 
should  think  proper.  Their  meeting  should  never  be  in  a 
country  which  had  a  case  on  trial.  These  persons  should 
enjoy  the  same  privileges  and  immunities  as  ambassadors. 

3.  Their  verdicts,  like  the  verdicts  of  other  great  courts, 
should  be  decided  by  a  majority,  and  need  not  be,  like  the 
decrees  of  the  Congress,  unanimous.  The  majority  should 
appoint  one  of  their  number  to  make  out  their  verdict, 
giving  a  statement  of  facts  from  the  testimony  presented 
to  the  court,  and  the  reasoning  on  those  facts  by  which  they 
come  to  a  conclusion. 

4>.  All  cases  submitted  to  the  court  should  be  judged  by 
the  true  interpretation  of  existing  treaties,  and  by  the 
laws  enacted  by  the  Congress  and  ratified  by  the  nations 
represented;  and  where  these  treaties  and  laws  fail 
*  44  of  establishing  the  point  at  issue,  they  *  should 
judge  the  cause  by  the  principles  of  equity  and 
justice. 

5.  In  cases  of  disputed  boundary,  the  court  should  have 
the  power  to  send  surveyors  appointed  by  themselves,  but 
at  the  expense  of  the  parties,  to  survey  the  boundaries, 
collect  facts  on  the  spot,  and  report  to  the  court.  Had 
there  been  such  a  court,  the  boundary  line  between  Maine 
and  New  Brunswick  would,  long  ago,  have  been  equitably 
settled,  to  the  satisfaction  of  both  parties.  Some  of  the 
ex-governors  of  Maine  have  expressed  to  me  that  opinion. 
The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  very  soon,  settled 
a  similar  difficulty  between  Massachusetts  and  Rhode 
Island. 


8Q  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

6.  This  court  should  not  only  decide  on  all  cases  brought 
before  it  by  any  two  or  more  independent,  contending 
nations,  but  they  should  be  authorized  to  offer  their  mediation 
where  war  actually  exists,  or  in  any  difficulty  arising  between 
any  two  or  more  nations  which  would  endanger  the  peace 
of  the  world.  Indeed,  they  should  act  as  conservators  of 
the  peace  of  Christendom,  and  watch  over  the  welfare  of 
mankind,  either  of  the  nations  of  the  confederacy,  or  the 
world  at  large.  Often  nations  go  to  war  on  a  point  of 
honor;  and  having  begun  to  threaten,  think  they  cannot 
recede  without  disgrace ;  at  the  same  time,  they  would  be  glad 
to  catch  at  such  an  excuse  for  moderation ;  and  often,  when 
nations  are  nearly  exhausted  by  a  protracted  war,  they 
would  be  glad  to  make  peace,  but  they  fear  to  make  the 

first  advances,  lest  it  should  be  imputed  to  weakness ; 
*  45     and  *  they  would  joyfully  embrace  a  mediator.    In 

cases  where  ambassadors  would  neither  be  sent  nor 
accepted,  the  members  of  this  court  might  go,  as  heralds 
of  peace.  How  much  better  it  would  have  been  for  the  honor 
and  interest  of  France,  if  she  had  submitted  her  late  disputes 
with  ^lexico,  Buenos  Ayres  and  queen  Pomare,  to  such  a 
court,  rather  than  be  at  so  great  an  expense  to  force  an 
unwilling  confession,  which  will  rankle  in  the  hearts  of  those 
who  have  been  forced  to  it,  for  a  whole  generation. 

7.  If  the  court  should  be  applied  to,  to  settle  any  internal 
dispute  between  any  two  contending  factions,  such  as  the 
right  of  succession  to  the  throne,  it  would  be  their  duty  to 
hear  the  parties,  and  give  their  opinion  according  to  the 
laws  and  usages  of  the  country  asking  their  advice;  but 
they  should  never  officiously  offer  an  exparte  verdict,  though 
they  might  propose  terms  of  reconciliation.  It  is  probable, 
that,  had  such  a  court  existed,  the  troubles  in  Spain  and 
Portugal  would  have  been  of  short  duration. 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  87 

8.  It  should  be  the  duty  of  a  Court  of  Nations,  from 
time  to  time,  to  suggest  topics  for  the  consideration  of  the 
Congress,  as  new  or  unsettled  principles,  favorable  to  the 
peace  and  welfare  of  nations,  would  present  themselves  to 
the  court,  in  the  adjudication  of  cases.  They  would  be  the 
more  able  to  do  this,  from  their  being  more  than  all  other 
men  conversant  with  such  subjects,  and  their  intimations 
would  be  well  received  by  the  Congress,  who  should  in 

all   their   acts,    study   the   good   of   mankind   and 
*  46     the  *  interests  of  humanity;  so  that  in  doubtful  cases 
philanthropy  should  be  thrown  into  the  scale. 

9.  There  are  many  other  cases  beside  those  above- 
mentioned,  in  which  such  a  court  would  either  prevent  war 
or  end  it.  A  nation  would  not  be  justified,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  world,  in  going  to  war,  when  there  was  an  able  and 
impartial  umpire  to  judge  its  case;  and  many  a  dispute 
would  be  quashed  at  the  outset,  if  it  were  known  that  the 
world  would  require  an  impartial  investigation  of  it  by  able 
judges. 


47  *CHAPTER   VIII. 


HISTORICAL  NOTICES  OF  PAST  ATTEMPTS  AT  SOMETHING  LIKE 
A  CONGRESS  AND  COURT  OF  NATIONS. 

1.  Plans  in  some  things  resembling  this  very  ancient — 2.  Amphictyonic  Council — 
3.  Achaean  League— 4.  Lycian  Confederacy — 5.  League  of  the  Hanse  towns — 
7.  Great  scheme  of  Henry  IV — 8.  Holy  Alliance — 9-22.  Congress  of  Panama 
— 23.  Inferences  to  be  deduced  from  it — 24.  Remarks  on  the  foregoing — 
25.  Some  of  their  features  retained — 26.  Number  of  delegates. 

1.'  From  the  history  of  the  earliest  ages,  it  appears  that 
mankind  have  been  desirous  of  something  like  the  proposed 
plan  of  a  Congress  and  Court  of  Nations,  especially  in 
communities  of  small  independent  states,  where  from  the 
contiguity  of  the  parties,  such  a  plan  was  more  easy  to 
be  carried  into  effect,  and  was  more  necessary  for  their 
safety  and  happiness.  In  most  of  these  confederations, 
protection  from  external  violence  was  as  much  an  object 
as  internal  peace.  There  were,  therefore,  many  features  in 
ancient  councils,  diets,  and  congresses,  which  do  not  at  all 
enter  into  our  plan,  and  which  sooner  or  later  paved  the 
way  for  the  ruin  of  theirs.  Nevertheless,  while  they  did 
continue,  they  were  a  great  blessing  to  the  parties  concerned. 
We,  by  no  means,  propose  them  as  models  for  our  plan, 
but  adduce  them,  only  to  show  that,  if  so  great  an  advance 

towards  the  perfection  of  civil  society  could  be  made 
*  48      in  times  of  *  ignorance,  superstition  and  barbarity, 

much  more  is  to  be  expected  from  a  somewhat  similar 
plan,  in  this  age  of  reason,  philanthropy,  and  Christianity. 
After  reviewing  these  plans,  I  shall  attempt  to  show  wherein 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  89 

they  differed  from  that  which  we  propose,  and  also  what 
parts  of  them  are  to  be  retained  in  our  plan,  and  what 
rejected  from  it. 

2.  The  Council  of  the  Amphictyons  consisted  originally 
of  twelve  states  or  cities,  and  finally  extended  to  thirty-one. 
It  was  established  in  the  year  1497,  B.  C.  RoUin  says,  "  It 
was,  in  a  manner,  the  holding  of  a  general  assembly  of 
the  states  of  Greece.  Its  establishment  is  attributed  to 
Amphictyon,  king  of  Athens,  who  gave  it  his  name.  His 
principal  view  was  to  unite,  in  the  sacred  bond  of  amity, 
the  several  states  of  Greece  admitted  into  it,  and  oblige 
them,  by  that  union,  to  undertake  the  defence  of  each  other, 
and  be  mutually  vigilant  for  the  happiness  and  tranquillity 
of  their  country.  It  was  held  at  Thermopylge  and  sometimes 
at  Delphos,  and  regularly  assembled  in  the  spring  and  fall, 
and  oftener  if  occasion  required.  Each  city  sent  two 
deputies,  and  consequently  had  two  votes  in  the  council, 
and  that  without  distinction,  or  the  more  powerful  having 
any  prerogative  of  honor  or  preeminence  over  inferior  states 
in  regard  to  the  suffrages  —  the  liberty,  on  which  these 
people  valued  themselves,  requiring  that  every  thing  should 
be  equal  among  them.  They  had  full  power  to  discuss  all 
differences  which  might  arise  between  the  Amphictyonic 
cities/^     Rees,   in  his    Cyclopaedia   says,   ''^  They   decided 

all  public  differences  and  disputes  between  any  of 
*  49      the  *  cities  of  Greece,  and  their  determinations  were 

received  with  the  greatest  veneration,  and  were  ever 
held  sacred  and  inviolable.  Had  its  members  been  actuated 
by  a  spirit  of  peace,  of  justice  and  of  good  order,  it  would 
have  rendered  it  for  ever  respectable."  But  Philip,  king  of 
Macedon,  by  his  intrigues,  gained  an  ascendency  in  this 
famous  council,  and  was  the  means  of  reducing  it  to  a  mere 
shadow.    Nevertheless  it  continued  until  after  the  reign  of 


40  CONGRESS    OF   NATIONS 

Augustus  Caesar,  or  for  fifteen  centuries,  and  gradually 
expired. 

8.  Of  the  Achaean  League,  Rees  says,  "  Strangers  to  the 
desire  of  conquest,  and  having  little  connection  with  corrupt 
nations,  they  never  employed  falsehood,  even  against  their 
enemies.  Although  each  city  was  independent  of  the  others, 
yet  they  formed  one  body  and  one  state.  So  great  was 
their  character  for  justice  and  probity,  that  the  Greek  cities 
of  Italy  referred  their  disputes  to  their  arbitration.  The 
Lacedemonians  and  Thebans  referred  to  them  an  interesting 
matter  of  dissension  between  them.  Having  long  retained 
their  liberty,  they  ceased  not  to  assemble  when  the  necessity 
of  public  deliberation  required  it,  and  even  when  the  rest  of 
Greece  was  threatened  with  war  and  pestilence."  Polybius 
observes,  "  The  Achseans  so  far  gained  the  esteem  and 
confidence  of  all  the  Europeans,  that  their  name  became 
common  to  all  that  country."  The  Achaean  League,  how- 
ever, at  length  fell  into  discord,  and  became,  in  consequence, 
like  the  Amphictj'ons,  subject  to  the  Lacedemonians.  But 
280  years  before  Christ  the  league  was  renewed,  and  con- 
tinued 134  years  longer. 
*  50  *  4.  The  Lycian  Confederacy  consisted  of  twenty- 
three  cities,  in  which  a  monarchical  form  of  govern- 
ment prevailed.  In  the  general  council,  the  large  cities  had 
three  votes,  the  smaller  two.  They  had  once  been  addicted  to 
piracy;  but  Rees  says,  *'  The  Lycians  are  highly  commended 
by  the  ancients  for  their  sobriety  and  manner  of  adminis- 
tering justice." 

5.  The  league  of  the  Hanse  towns  commenced  in  the  12th 
centurj%  and  was  confirmed  and  established  in  the  year  1234. 
An  extraordinary  general  assembly  was  held  every  ten  years, 
in  which  they  solenmly  renewed  their  league,  admitted  new 
members  and  expelled  old  ones,  if  they  proved  refractory. 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  41 

This  confederation  first  commenced  by  a  league  between  the 
cities  of  Lubeck  and  Hamburgh,  and  afterward  consisted 
of  twelve  towns  situated  near  the  Baltic.  They  first  formed 
a  system  of  international  laws,  enacted  in  their  general 
assemblies.  The  league  afterward  extended  to  between 
seventy  and  eighty  towns  and  cities.  In  the  year  1730,  the 
regular  number  was  sixty-three,  besides  which  there  were 
forty-four  towns  that  were  considered  as  allies.  While  they 
kept  at  peace  with  the  surrounding  nations,  they  flourished 
beyond  all  precedent,  but  having  become  rich  and  powerful, 
they  equipped  fleets  and  raised  armies;  and  about  the  year 
1346,  they  waged  a  successful  war  against  Waldemar  III, 
king  of  Denmark;  and  again  against  the  same  power  in 
1428.  By  this  means,  they  drew  on  them  the  jealousy  of 
other  powers,  and  the  league  was  gradually  reduced ;  so  that 

the  present  Hanseatic  League  consists  only  of  the 
*  51     three  cities,  Lubeck,   *   Hamburgh,   and   Bremen; 

and  in  the  definitive  treaty  of  1803,  they  were 
acknowledged  as  Hanseatic  cities,  with  a  guaranty  of  their 
jurisprudence  and  perpetual  neutrality. 

6.  The  foundation  of  the  confederation  of  the  states  of 
Switzerland,  commonly  called  the  Helvetic  Union,  was  laid 
in  1308.  Rees  says,  "  The  code  of  public  law  between  the 
combined  republics  of  Switzerland  is  founded  on  the  treaty 
of  Sempatch  in  1393,  upon  the  convention  of  Stantz,  and 
the  treaty  of  peace  in  1712,  at  Aran,  between  the  Protestant 
and  Catholic  cantons.  From  these  several  treaties  it 
appears,  that  the  Helvetic  Union  is  a  perpetual  defensive 
alliance  between  independent  powers,  to  protect  each  other 
by  their  united  force  against  all  foreign  enemies.  Another 
essential  object  of  the  league  is,  to  preserve  general  peace 
and  good  order;  for  which  purpose  it  is  covenanted,  that  all 
public  dissensions  shall  finally  be  settled  between  the  con- 


42  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

tending  parties  in  an  amicable  manner;  and  with  this  view 
particular  judges  and  arbitrators  are  appointed,  who  shall 
be  empowered  to  compose  the  dissensions  which  may  happen 
to  arise.  To  this  is  added  a  reciprocal  guaranty  of  the  forms 
of  government  established  in  the  respective  commonwealths. 
No  separate  engagement,  which  any  of  the  cantons  may 
conclude,  can  be  valid  if  it  be  inconsistent  with  the  funda- 
mental articles  of  this  general  union.  With  these  exceptions, 
the  combined  states  are  independent  of  each  other.  They 
may  form  alliances  with  any  power,  or  may  reject  the  same, 

though  all  the  others  have  acceded  to  it  —  may  grant 
*  52      auxiliary  troops  *  to  foreign  princes  —  may  prohibit 

the  money  of  the  other  cantons  from  being  current 
within  their  own  territories  —  may  impose  taxes,  and,  in 
short,  perform  every  other  act  of  absolute  sovereignty.  The 
public  affairs  of  the  Helvetic  body  are  discussed  and  deter- 
mined in  their  several  diets."  "  The  ordinary  meeting  of 
the  general  diet  is  in  January,  annually,  and  continues 
sitting  one  month.  The  extraordinary  assemblies  are 
summoned  upon  particular  occasions."  "  Each  canton 
sends  as  many  deputies  as  it  thinks  proper."  "  The  whole 
republic  is  composed  of  thirteen  cantons,  thirteen  incor- 
porated territories  and  twenty-one  independent  lordships." 
"  Every  town  and  state  has  its  own  particular  constitution 
for  the  management  of  its  churches,  academies,  schools  and 
other  ecclesiastical  affairs;  but  all  live  in  mutual  amity, 
without  invading  the  rights  and  privileges  of  one  another" 
J.  ^lallet  Du  Pan,  who  seems  to  have  been  an  inhabitant  of 
Switzerland,  and  probably  a  native,  in  his  "  History  of  the 
Destruction  of  the  Helvetic  Union,"  published  in  London, 
in  1798,  says  of  the  Helvetic  Confederacy,  "  Those  states, 
united  for  their  common  preservation,  consisted  of  twenty 
republics,  forming  one  republic,  and,  notwithstanding  the 


CONGRESS    OF   NATIONS  43 

defect  of  a  collective  body  without  sovereignty,  experience 
promised  it  duration;  for  the  imperfection  of  its  federal 
union  was  counterbalanced  by  great  advantages.  If  it 
enfeebled  subordination  in  those  aggregate  communities,  it 
also  left  them  with  independence,  the  invaluable  privilege 

of  obeying  their  own  laws  and  of  being  governed  by 
*  53     their  immediate  fellow-citizens."    *    "  The  relations 

and  duties  of  this  defensive  league  were  settled  by 
simple  agreement,  and  their  sanction  was  ratified  by  time 
and  self-interest.  No  treacherous  idea  of  an  independent 
republic  ever  entered  the  minds  of  these  sensible  people. 
Nature  and  fortune  had  made  them  unequal  in  territory, 
in  political  liberty,  manners,  and  origin;  they  respected 
nature  and  the  work  of  ages."  A  writer  in  the  Christian 
Spectator  of  1832,  says,  "  No  diversities  of  character  and 
state  are  greater  than  those  which  exist  in  this  confederation. 
It  comprises  people  of  three  distinct  nations,  speaking  three 
of  the  prominent  languages  of  Europe,  —  the  German  in 
the  east,  the  French  in  the  west,  and  the  Italian  in  the  south- 
east. They  are  divided  into  twenty-two  independent  states, 
each  of  which  has  a  dress  and  manners,  in  some  degree, 
peculiar  to  itself,  and  a  dialect  often  scarcely  intelligent 
to  those  around  it.  The  forms  of  government  vary,  from 
the  purest  democracy,  in  which  every  male  of  the  canton 
above  the  age  of  seventeen  is  a  member  of  the  body  which 
makes  the  laws,  to  the  most  rigorous  aristocracy,  in  which 
the  offices  are  confined  almost  entirely  to  the  families  of 
patricians.  The  nature  of  the  confederation  is  not  such  as 
to  impress  a  uniform  character  on  elements  so  discordant. 
Their  diet  is  a  mere  convention  of  ambassadors,  who  only 
treat  with  each  other  according  to  the  strict  tenor  of  their 
instructions,  and  who  cannot  vote  for  a  law  without  first 
obtaining  the  consent  of  the  government  which  sends  them." 


44  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

It  is  difficult,  but  not  important,  to  reconcile  the  dis- 

♦  54     crepancies  of  these  *  writers,  with  respect  to  the  num- 

ber of  the  members  of  this  Union.  Perhaps  the 
number  has  been  different  at  different  times.  Some  mem- 
bers may  have  been  excluded,  or  withdrawn,  and  others 
added.  All  these  writers  agree,  however,  in  the  main 
features  of  the  Union ;  and  show  that  it  consisted  of  numbers 
of  independent  states,  differing  from  one  another  in  lan- 
guage, religion,  laws,  forms  of  government,  manners  and 
customs,  united  together,  not  only  for  the  purpose  of  resist- 
ing foreign  aggression,  but  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining 
peace  with  one  another,  by  an  equitable  and  amicable 
settlement  of  all  disputes  arising  between  any  two  or  more 
members  of  the  Union,  which  has  continued  for  more  than 
500  years  to  be  a  blessing  to  the  framers  of  it  and  their 
posterity.  It  is  true  the  whirlwind  of  the  French  revolution, 
which  prostrated  every  thing  else  within  its  vortex,  nearly 
upset  this  gallant  bark  also,  so  that  many,  with  J.  Mallet 
Du  Pan,  thought  her  destroyed.  But  the  storm  passed  over, 
and  she  righted  again,  by  the  weight  of  her  own  ballast, 
and  she  now  keeps  on  the  peaceful  tenor  of  her  way,  the 
admiration  of  the  world  and  a  beautiful  monument  of  human 
wisdom.  I  have  dwelt  the  longer  on  the  Helvetic  Union, 
because  I  consider  the  civil  part  of  this  institution  —  the  diet 
and  the  court  of  judges  or  arbitrators  —  as  the  nearest 
working  model  of  our  proposed  Congress  and  Court  of 
Nations  which  ever  existed.  True,  it  is  imperfect,  like  all 
other  human  devices,  and  wants  that  correction,  which  the 

increased   knowledge   and   wisdom   of   the   present 

*  55     times  can  give  it.    *    No  good  reason  can  be  given 

why  a  plan,  which  has  worked  so  well  on  a  small 
scale,  may  not  be  extended,  so  as  to  embrace  all  Christian 
and  civilized  nations. 


CONGRESS    OF   NATIONS  45 

7.  The  Great  Scheme  of  Henry  IV,  of  France,  begun  in 
1601,  here  requires  a  passing  notice.  The  real  object  of 
Henry  is  uncertain,  —  possibly  it  was  defence  against  the 
encroachments  of  Mahometan  nations  on  Christendom, — 
probably  the  humbling  of  the  house  of  Austria.  Whatever 
were  his  motives,  he  imagined  the  great  project  of  uniting 
all  the  nations  of  Europe  in  one  grand  confederated  republic 
of  fifteen  members  —  six  hereditary  monarchies,  five  elective 
monarchies,  and  four  republics.  He  gained  the  consent  of 
Holland,  Hesse  Cassel,  Anhalt,  Hungary,  Bohemia,  Lower 
Austria,  several  provinces  and  towns  in  Germany,  the  Swiss 
cantons,  and  queen  Elizabeth  of  England.  The  limits  of 
this  dissertation  do  not  allow  me  to  go  further  into  the 
details  of  a  plan,  which,  in  the  moral  state  of  the  world 
when  it  was  proposed,  never  could  have  been  accomplished ; 
and  if  it  had  been,  the  condition  of  mankind,  probably, 
would  not  have  been  immediately  much  ameliorated;  for 
they  might  have  lost  as  much  in  liberty  as  they  would  have 
gained  in  a  peace  compelled  by  the  power  of  the  sword  and 
great  standing  armies,  always  dangerous  to  liberty  and  the 
favorite  instrument  of  tyrants.  The  assassin  Ravaillac  put 
an  end,  at  once,  to  the  Great  Scheme  and  the  life  of  the 
great  Henry,  in  1610,  and  nothing  remains  of  the  Scheme, 
but  its  record  in  history.    All  that  the  friends  of  peace  would 

make  of  the  Great  Scheme  is,  to  show  that,  if  so 
*  56     many  *  nations  could  be  induced  to  embrace  a  plan 

so  complicated,  cumbersome,  and  expensive,  we  have 
abundant  reason  to  believe,  that  a  plan  so  simple,  easy,  and 
cheap  as  that  which  we  propose,  would  at  once  be  adopted  by 
Christian  nations,  if  once  proposed  by  some  leading  power. 

8.  The  Holy  Alliance  is  the  next  thing  of  the  kind  which 
claims  our  attention.  An  extraordinary  instrument,  of  three 
short  articles,  dated  at  Paris,  September,  1815,  was  signed 


46  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

and  sealed  by  Francis,  emperor  of  Austria,  Frederic  Wil- 
liam, king  of  Prussia,  and  Alexander,  emperor  of  Russia. 
The  three  articles  barely  state,  for  substance,  that  the  high 
contracting  parties  solemnly  pledge  themselves  to  behave 
like  brethren  in  their  future  intercourse  with  one  another, 
to  assist  each  other,  and  to  be  fathers  to  their  subjects.  They 
acknowledge  Gk)d  as  the  only  rightful  sovereign,  and  that 
the  world  "  has  in  reality  no  other  sovereign  than  Him." 
They  commend  the  principles  of  the  Christian  religion  to 
their  subjects;  and  they  offer  to  receive  other  nations  pro- 
fessing like  principles  into  their  alliance.  The  emperor 
Alexander  issued  a  manifesto,  on  the  Christmas  following, 
in  which  he  ordered  the  articles  of  the  Alliance  to  be  read 
in  all  the  churches  in  Russia.  In  that  manifesto,  he  promised 
to  adopt  "  the  principle  derived  from  the  words  and  religion 
of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  who  teaches  mankind 
to  live  as  brethren,  not  in  hatred  and  strife,  but  in  peace 
and  love."    It  does  not  appear,  that  any  other  of  the  nations, 

except  the  abovementioned,  have  joined  the  Holy 
*  57     Alliance,  though  the  kings  of  *  England  and  France 

sent  ministers  to  them,  not,  however,  as  sovereigns, 
but  as  individuals.  It  was  said,  that  there  was  a  constitu- 
tional objection  to  Great  Britain's  joining  the  Alliance,  as 
mentioned  in  the  succeeding  note.  It  has  been  looked  on 
with  jealousy  by  the  free  people  of  other  countries,  as  a 
conspiracy  of  kings  against  the  liberty  of  their  subjects;  but 
I  have  no  doubt  that  Alexander,  who  was  the  father  and 
chief  promoter  of  the  enterprise,  meant  better  things.  His 
premature  death,  together  with  this  jealousy,  was  probably 
the  cause  why  the  Holy  Alliance  came  to  nothing.*    From 

*  The  following  extract  of  a  letter  from  ex-president  Adama  to  the  author, 
shows  his  opinion  of  the  Holy  Alliance: 

"  The   Holy  Alliance   itself  was   a   tribute   from   the  mightiest  men   of   the 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  47 

what  has  appeared  in  some  English  periodicals,  it  is  prob- 
able, that  the  plan  of  the  Holjr  Alliance  was  first  sug- 
gested to  Alexander,  when  he  was  in  London,  by  an 
English  lady. 

9.  The  Congress  of  Panama  is  the  last  thing 
*  58  of  *  the  kind  of  which  I  propose  to  give  an  accoimt, 
and,  as  it  is  an  event  of  great  importance  to  us,  as 
an  attempt  at  something  more  like  the  very  plan  which 
has  always  been  the  object  of  the  friends  of  peace  than  any 
of  the  preceding ;  and  as  it  is  but  little  known  or  understood, 
either  in  America  or  Europe,  I  shall  depart  from  the  plan 
hitherto  pursued  in  this  chapter,  of  devoting  but  one  section 
to  each  of  the  past  attempts  at  an  approximation  to  a  Con- 
gress of  Nations.  I  spent  a  part  of  last  winter  (1838-9)  at 
Washington,  principally  in  order  to  collect  facts  and 
documents  on  this  and  other  subjects  interesting  to  the 
cause  of  peace.  All  the  documents  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives were  politely  laid  open  to  me,  and  I  was  much 
assisted  by  the  urbanity  and  intelligence  of  the  gentleman 
who  has  the  charge  of  them.  The  following  extracts  were 
made  from  those  documents. 

10.  President  Adams,  in  his  message  to  both  Houses  of 
Congress,  dated  December  6, 1825,  thus  notices  the  Congress 

European  world  to  the  purity  of  your  principles  and  the  practicability  of  your 
system  for  the  general  preservation  of  peace.  The  poisonous  ingredient  in  that 
league  was  the  unlimited  sovereignty  of  the  parties  to  it.  The  league  was 
autocratic,  and  so  peculiar  was  this  feature  in  its  composition,  that  the  prince 
regent  of  Great  Britain,  when  invited  to  become  a  party  to  it,  because  the 
constitution  of  that  country  did  not  recognize  treaties  as  national,  under  the 
personal  signature  of  the  monarch,  [declined.]  The  professed  principles  of  the 
Holy  Alliance  were  the  perpetual  preservation  of  peace,  and  the  sovereigns 
who  signed  the  treaty,  declared  that  they  considered  the  Christian  principles 
of  benevolence,  mutual  forbearance  and  charity,  as  obligatory  upon  them  as 
scvereigns  equally  as  upon  individuals.  But  they  bound  themselves  to  support 
each  other  against  all  wrong-doers  (they  themselves  to  be  the  judges  of  the 
wrong),  not  only  of  foreigners,  but  of  their  own  subjects," 


48  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

of  Panama  and  the  South  American  states:  "Among  the 
measures  which  have  been  suggested  to  them,  by  the  new 
relations  to  one  another,  resulting  from  the  recent  changes 
in  their  condition,  is  that  of  assembling,  at  the  isthmus  of 
Panama,  a  congress,  at  which  each  of  them  shall  be  repre- 
sented, to  deliberate  on  objects  important  to  the  welfare 
of  them  all.  The  republics  of  Colombia,  of  Mexico,  and 
of  Central  America  have  already  deputed  plenipotentiaries 
to  such  a  meeting,  and  they  have  invited  the  United  States 

to  be  also  represented  there  by  their  ministers.  The 
*  69     invitation  has  been  accepted,  *  and  ministers  on  the 

part  of  the  United  States  will  be  commissioned  to 
attend  at  those  deliberations,  and  to  take  part  in  them,  so 
far'  as  can  be  compatible  with  that  neutrality,  from  which 
it  is  neither  the  intention,  nor  the  desire,  of  the  other  Ameri- 
can states  that  we  should  depart." 

11.  On  March  7,  1826,  President  Adams  sent  a  special 
message  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  in  answer  to  their 
requirement,  from  which  the  following  facts  and  observa- 
tions are  obtained.  It  appears  that  before  instructions  had 
been  given  to  our  ministers  to  Panama,  treaties  had  been 
entered  into  by  the  republics  of  South  America.  In  this 
message,  ^Ir.  Adams  obsen'es,  "  In  the  intercourse  between 
nations,  temper  is  a  minister,  perhaps  more  powerful  than 
talent.  Nothing  was  ever  lost  by  kind  treatment.  Nothing 
can  be  gained  by  sullen  repulses  and  aspiring  pretensions." 
*'  Objects  of  the  highest  importance,  not  only  to  the  future 
welfare  of  the  whole  human  race,  but  bearing  directly  on 
the  special  interests  of  this  Union,  will  engage  the  delibera- 
tions of  the  Congress  of  Panama,  whether  we  are  represented 
there  or  not.  Others,  if  we  are  represented,  may  be  offered 
by  our  plenipotentiaries  for  consideration,  having  in  view 
both  these  great  results  —  our  own  interests  and  the  improve- 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  49 

merit  of  the  condition  of  man  upon  earth.  It  may  be  that, 
in  the  lapse  of  many  centuries,  no  other  opportunity  so 
favorable  will  be  presented  to  the  government  of  the  United 
States,  to  subserve  the  benevolent  purposes  of  Divine  Provi- 
dence, to  dispense  the  promised  blessings  of  the 
*  60  Redeemer  of  mankind,  *  to  promote  the  prevalence,  in 
future  ages,  of  peace  on  earth  and  good-will  to  man, 
as  will  now  be  placed  in  their  power  by  participating  in  the 
deliberations  of  this  congress." 

12.  The  President  further  adds,  "  It  will  be  in  the  recol- 
lection of  the  House  that,  immediately  after  the  war  of  our 
independence,  a  measure,  closely  analogous  to  this  Congress 
of  Panama,  was  adopted  by  the  Congress  of  our  confedera- 
tion, and  for  purposes  of  precisely  the  same  character. 
Three  commissioners,  with  plenipotentiary  powers,  were 
appointed,  to  negotiate  treaties  of  amity,  navigation,  and 
commerce  with  all  the  principal  powers  of  Europe.  They 
met  and  resided  about  one  year,  for  that  purpose,  at  Paris ; 
and  the  result  of  their  negotiations,  at  that  time,  was  the 
first  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Prussia  —  remark- 
able in  the  diplomatic  annals  of  the  world,  and  precious  as 
a  monument  of  the  principles  in  relation  to  commerce  and 
maritime  warfare,  with  which  our  country  entered  into  her 
career  as  a  member  of  the  great  family  of  independent 
nations.  This  treaty,  prepared  in  conformity  with  the 
instructions  of  the  American  plenipotentiaries,  consecrated 
three  fundamental  principles  of  foreign  intercourse,  which 
the  Congress  of  that  period  were  desirous  of  establishing. 
First,  equal  reciprocity  and  the  mutual  stipulation  of  the 
privileges  of  the  most  favored  nation  in  the  commercial 
exchanges  of  peace;  secondly,  the  abolition  of  private  war 
on  the  ocean;  and,  thirdly,  restrictions  favorable  to  neu- 
tral  commerce    upon    belligerent   practices    with    regard 


50  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

to    contraband   of   war   and    blockades."      "  They 

*  61      were  *  able  to  obtain  from  one  great  and  philo- 

sophical, though  absolute,  sovereign  of  Europe 
[Frederick  III,  of  Prussia]  an  assent  to  their  liberal  and 
enlightened  principles." 

13.  Speaking  of  the  republics  of  South  America,  the 
President  adds,  "  The  only  causes  of  dissension  between  us 
and  them  which  ever  have  arisen,  originated  in  those  never- 
failing  fountains  of  discord  and  irritation,  discriminations 
of  commercial  favor  to  other  countries,  licentious  privateers, 
and  paper  blockades."  He  further  adds,  "  If  it  be  true, 
that  the  noblest  treaty  of  peace  ever  mentioned  in  history, 
is  that  by  which  the  Carthaginians  were  bound  to  abolish  the 
practice  of  sacrificing  their  own  children  because  it  was 
stipulated  in  favor  of  human  nature,  I  cannot  exaggerate 
to  myself  the  unfading  glory,  with  which  these  United  States 
will  go  forth  in  the  memory  of  future  ages,  if  by  their  friendly 
counsel,  by  their  moral  influence,  by  the  power  of  argument 
and  persuasion  alone,  they  can  prevail  upon  the  American 
nations  at  Panama  to  stipulate  by  general  agreement  among 
themselves,  and  so  far  as  any  of  them  may  be  concerned, 
the  perpetual  abohtion  of  private  war  upon  the  ocean.  And 
if  we  cannot  yet  flatter  ourselves,  that  this  can  be  accom- 
plished, as  advances  toward  it,  the  establishment  of  the 
principle,  that  the  friendly  flag  shall  cover  the  cargo,  the 
curtailment  of  the  contraband  of  war,  and  the  proscription 
of  fictitious  paper  blockades;  engagements,  which  we  may 
reasonably  hope  will  not  prove  impracticable,  will,  if  success- 
fully inculcated,  redound  proportionably  to  our  honor, 

*  62     and  drain  the  fountain  *  of  many  a  future,  sanguinary 

war."  The  President  closed  his  message  with  the 
following  remarks:  "That  the  Congress  of  Panama  will 
accomplish  all,  or  even  any  of  the  transcendent  benefits  to 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  51 

the  human  race  which  warmed  the  conception  of  its  first 
purpose,  it  is  perhaps  indulging  too  sanguine  a  forecast  of 
events  to  promise.  It  is  in  its  nature  speculative  and 
experimental.  The  blessings  of  heaven  may  turn  it  to  the 
account  of  human  improvement.  Accidents  unforeseen  and 
mischances  not  to  be  anticipated  may  baffle  all  its  high 
purposes  and  disappoint  its  fairest  expectations.  But  the 
design  is  great.  It  looks  to  the  amelioration  of  the  condition 
of  man." 

14.  Accompanying  this  message  was  a  communication 
from  Henry  Clay,  Secretary  of  State,  giving  an  account  of 
the  first  intimation,  which  was  made  to  him,  of  the  proposed 
Congress  of  Panama,  which  intimation  was  made  during 
the  preceding  spring,  in  a  conversation  with  the  ministers 
of  Colombia  and  Mexico  on  the  same  day.  Don  Jose  Maria 
Salazar,  minister  from  Colombia,  wrote  a  letter  to  Mr.  Clay, 
under  date  of  November  2,  1825,  in  which  he  reminds  him 
of  a  previous  conversation  on  the  subject  of  the  proposed 
Congress,  and  Mr.  Clay's  intimation  that,  if  the  United  States 
were  formally  invited,  they  would  send  a  delegate  to  it. 
This  letter  is  intended  to  be  the  formal  invitation,  at  the 
same  time  informing  Mr.  Clay  that  the  "  minister  from 
Mexico  will  present  the  same  on  the  part  of  his  government; 
and  that  the  minister  from  Guatemala  has  just  received 
similar  instructions  from  his  government."  Don 
*  63  Pablo  Obregen,  the  minister  from  *  Mexico,  after- 
wards extended  a  similar  formal  invitation,  in  which 
he  states,  that  the  Congress  was  to  assemble  at  Panama,  and 
that  "  representatives  from  Colombia,  Peru,  Guatemala,  and 
Mexico  will  have  arrived  at  the  date  of  this  letter,"  (Nov.  3, 
1825.)  Don  Antonio  Jose  Canar,  minister  from  the  gov- 
ernment of  Central  America,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Clay,  of 
near  the  same  date,  joins  in  the  invitation,  and  states,  that 


52  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

his  government  had  formed  a  convention  with  Colombia  on 
the  19th  of  March  preceding,  providing  for  this  object. 

15.  On  the  abovementioned  message  of  the  President,  it 
seems  Mr.  Crowninshield,  of  the  committee  of  Foreign 
Affairs,  offered  a  report,  dated  March  26, 1826,  of  which  the 
following  are  some  of  the  features.  1st.  The  report  replies 
to  the  objection  that  the  proposed  Congress  is  unconstitu- 
tional, and  plainly  shows  its  constitutionality.  2d.  It  replies 
to  the  objection,  "  that  all  its  objects  could  be  attained  by 
separate  negotiation  with  the  several  states,"  and  thus 
answers  that  objection.  "  It  is  questionable  whether  separate 
and  disconnected  negotiations  between  states,  geographically 
so  remote  and  in  various  respects  politically  different  from 
each  other,  could  be  brought  to  the  same  harmonious  and 
systematic  result  as  a  discussion  in  an  assembly  of  diplomatic 
agents,  promptly  communicating  with  each  other  informa- 
tion, counsel,  and  argument."  Another  objection  answered 
is,  that  of  an  "  entangling  alliance."     It  was  shown,  that 

there  is  no  more  danger  in  an  alliance  with  all  the 
*  64     nations  together,  than  in  an  *  alliance  with  each 

separately,  especially  when  it  is  understood,  that  no 
act  of  our  ministers  at  the  Congress  would  be  binding,  imtil 
ratified  by  our  government.  Another  objection  answered 
in  the  report  is,  that  the  proposed  Congress  is  unprecedented. 
But  there  have  been  many  congresses  of  a  like  nature  in 
Europe,  and  if  this  objection  ever  had  any  force,  it  is  now 
void.  The  adoption  of  the  federal  constitution  of  the  United 
States  was  equally  unprecedented. 

16.  It  would  be  very  interesting,  to  insert  the  whole  of 
this  very  able  report.  Almost  all  the  arguments,  used  to 
support  the  policy  of  sending  representatives  to  the  Congress 
of  Panama,  would  apply  to  the  case  of  a  Congress  of 
Nations;  while  some  objections  which  appeared  specious, 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  58 

when  urged  against  the  Congress  of  Panama,  are  of  no 
force  when  iu*ged  against  a  general  Congress  of  Nations. 
While  this  report  was  under  consideration  in  the  House, 
several  resolutions,  hostile  to  it,  were  introduced,  but  their 
aim  seemed  to  be  chiefly  directed  against  any  political 
connection ;  but  to  a  representative  in  a  diplomatic  character, 
there  seemed  to  be  no  forcible  objection. 

17.  Brevity  compels  me  barely  to  notice  a  few  facts  and 
dates  of  importance,  like  the  following.  The  emperor  of 
Brazil  appointed  a  plenipotentiary  to  attend  the  Congress 
of  Panama,  by  a  decree  dated  January  25,  1826.  On  March 
26,  1826,  President  Adams  submitted  to  the  consideration 
of  Congress  the  propriety  of  making  the  appropriation 
necessary  to  carry  into  effect  the  Congress  of  Panama. 

The  commissions  of  the  ministers  from  the  United 
*  65      States  *  to  the  Congress  of  Panama,  are  dated  March 

14,  1826.  Mr.  Anderson,  one  of  our  ministers  left 
Bogota,  to  repair  to  Panama,  June  12, 1826.  Mr.  Sargeant, 
our  other  minister,  commenced  his  legation  on  the  24!th  of 
October  of  the  same  year.  The  Congress  of  Panama  was 
organized  22d  of  June,  1826.  The  session  was  a  short  one, 
on  account  of  the  sickliness  of  the  climate  of  Panama,  most 
of  the  delegates  being  affected  with  it;  and  it  was  adjourned 
to  meet  at  Tacubaya,  near  the  city  of  Mexico,  July  15th,  of 
the  following  year.  An  agent  was  sent  by  the  governments 
of  Great  Britain,  of  France,  and  of  the  Netherlands,  but  it 
does  not  appear  that  either  arrived  in  time  to  be  present  at 
the  first  congress.  Neither  of  the  envoys  from  the  United 
States  arrived  in  time  for  the  first  session.  The  only 
members  represented  were  Peru,  Mexico,  Central  America, 
and  Colombia.  Plenipotentiaries  were  expected  from  Chih, 
but  there  was  not  time  for  their  appointment  and  arrival. 

18.  One  of  the  subjects  to  be  discussed  at  Panama  was, 


54  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

the  right  of  a  civilized  nation  so  to  occupy  uncivilized 
countries,  by  colonies,  as  to  exclude  others.  One  object  of 
our  sending  commissioners  to  Panama  was  to  secure  to  our 
citizens  their  religious  rights  in  the  various  countries  of 
South  America.  A  similar  subject  might,  perhaps,  engage 
the  attention  of  a  Congress  of  Nations.  The  Colombian 
minister  at  Washington,  in  one  of  his  communications  to  our 
government,  says,  **  At  Panama,  the  best  and  most  opportime 

occasion  is  offered  to  the  United  States,  to  fix  some 
*  66     principles  of  international  law,  the  unsettled  *  state 

of  which  has  done  much  evil  to  humanity.'*  Another 
thing  proposed  by  him  was  a  treaty  offensive  and  defensive 
against  the  aggressions  of  Spain.  This,  after  all,  perhaps 
was  the  chief  object  of  the  South  American  republics  for 
calling  the  Congress;  but  this,  of  course,  the  United  States 
would  have  nothing  to  do  with,  having  always  adopted  a 
neutral  policy.  The  rights  of  neutrals,  the  suppression  of 
the  African  slave  trade,  and  the  independence  of  Hayti, 
were  among  the  other  objects  proposed,  perhaps  for  a  lure, 
to  our  government. 

19.  As  no  delegates  had  arrived  from  any  foreign  nation, 
in  time  to  take  part  in  the  deliberations  of  the  first  session 
of  the  Congress,  none  of  those  things  of  general  interest  to 
the  civilized  world  at  large  were  agitated,  but  they  only 
busied  themselves  with  South  American  concerns,  perhaps 
from  a  conviction,  that  it  would  be  useless  to  discuss  topics 
of  general  interest,  in  so  small  a  Congress.  The  business  done 
was,  "  1st.  A  treaty  of  union,  league,  and  perpetual  confed- 
eration, between  the  four  American  states  represented  at 
the  Congress,  to  which  the  other  powers  of  America  might 
accede  within  a  year.  2d.  A  convention  for  the  renewal  of 
the  great  assembly  annually  in  time  of  war,  and  tri-annually 
in  time  of  peace.    3d.  A  convention  which  fixes  the  contingent 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  55 

which  each  confederate  should  contribute  for  the  common 

defence.    4th.  An  arrangement  concerning  the  employment 

and  direction  of  those  contingents.    5th.  Divers  declarations, 

that  the  treaties  which  Colombia  had  formerly  con- 

*  67     eluded  with  the  United  *  Mexican  States,  Central 

America,   and   Peru,   should  be  included  in  those 
treaties  with  certain  reservations." 

20.  This  is  all  that  was  done  at  the  Congress  of  Panama, 
and  probably  none  of  it  would  have  been  done  in  that 
Congress,  had  the  delegates  appointed  by  the  other  powers 
arrived  in  time  to  take  a  part  in  the  discussions.  But  these 
delegates  from  the  South  American  states,  finding  them- 
selves alone,  did  not  venture  on  the  discussion  of  those  topics 
which  were  proposed  by  those  states  when  they  invited  other 
powers  to  join  them  in  a  Congress  of  Nations;  and  they 
acted  only  on  those  which  were  peculiarly  interesting  to 
themselves,  and  which  would  not  have  been  thought  proper 
subjects  of  discussion  in  a  congress  of  delegates  from  the 
principal  powers  of  Christendom.  What  were  some  of  the 
principal  objects  aimed  at  by  the  Congress  of  Panama  may 
be  learned  from  the  introductory  or,  probably,  inaugural 
speech  of  the  minister  from  Peru  —  for  which  see  Appendix, 
No.  1. 

21.  In  a  conversation  which  I  held  with  Mr.  Sargeant,  at 
Washington,  January  29,  1839,  I  learned,  that  he  went  to 
Tacubaya,  at  the  time  appointed,  and  found  there  but  two 
or  three  delegates,  —  whether  Mr.  Anderson  was  one  of  them 
I  do  not  know,  or  whether  he  attended  any  meeting  of  the 
Congress,  —  but  no  congress  was  organized  at  Tacubaya,  and 
there  the  thing  ended.    I  did  not  find  Mr.  Sargeant  very 

communicative  —  perhaps  on  account  of  ill  health  and 

*  68     a  pressing  engagement  on  his  hands,  which  *  required 

his  immediate  attention.     I  had  no  opportunity  to 


56  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

call  on  him  afterward.  Diligent  search  was  made,  among 
the  congressional  documents,  for  a  report  from  the  delega- 
tion to  Panama,  but  it  was  not  found.  I  have  since  written 
to  ^Ir.  Sargeant  for  a  copy  of  such  a  report,  but  have  received 
no  answer.    Probably  such  a  report  was  never  made. 

22.  The  causes  of  the  failure  of  the  Congress  of  Panama, 
and  the  reasons  why  it  did  not  become  a  Congress  of  Nations, 
deserve  a  passing  notice.  1st.  The  South  Americans  were 
not  the  people  to  commence  such  a  congress  —  just  emerged 
as  they  were  from  a  state  of  semi-barbarism  and  slavery,  they 
knew  little,  or  nothing,  of  the  principles  of  international  law 
—  and,  besides  this,  they  were  more  intent  on  securing  their 
own  independence  from  Spain,  than  establishing  a  system 
of  pacific  relations  with  all  other  nations.  They  were,  them- 
selves, at  war  at  the  time,  and  could  attend  to  nothing  but 
war.  The  government,  that  invites  a  Congress  of  Nations, 
must  be  in  perfect  peace  and  harmony  with  all  other  govern- 
ments. 2d.  Panama  was  not  the  place  for  such  a  congress, 
far  removed  as  it  was  from  intercourse  with  the  rest  of  the 
world,  and  very  sickly.  Could  the  Congress  have  been  held 
together  until  our  ambassadors  and  the  delegates  from  other 
enlightened  states  could  have  met  with  them,  something 
might,  nevertheless,  have  been  done;  but,  interrupted  by  an 
endemical  sickness,  they  scattered,  never  again  to  be  united. 
Had  President  Adams,  when  invited  to  attend  to  this  subject, 

only  requested,  that  the  proposed  congress  should  be 
*  69      held  *  at  Washington  or  Philadelphia,  the   South 

American  ministers  could  not  have  objected,  many 
more  delegates  would  have  been  sent  by  the  powers  of 
Europe,  a  Congress  of  Nations  would  have  commenced,  and 
a  new  and  happy  era  would  have  dawned  on  the  world.  3d. 
The  character  of  Bolivar,  under  whose  auspices  the  congress 
was  called,  was  another  obstacle  to  its  success.    More  intent 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  57 

on  extending  his  own  power  than  on  preserving  peace,  he 
found  that  the  congress  would  be  an  obstacle  to  his  ambitious 
designs,  and  he  therefore  withdrew  his  countenance  from 
it.  I  am  confirmed  in  this  opinion,  by  a  letter  from  ex- 
president  Adams  to  me,  dated  September  14,  1838,  of  which 
the  following  is  an  extract:  "  The  proposition  [for  a  congress 
of  the  South  American  nations]  originated,  I  believe,  with 
the  late  Doctor  William  Thornton,  of  Washington;  who 
addressed  a  memoir,  reconmiending  a  congress  of  the  Ameri- 
can republics,  to  a  distinguished  citizen  of  Venezuela,  through 
whom  it  was  communicated  to  Bolivar,  the  Napoleon  of  this 
hemisphere.  Bolivar  had  no  more  honest  regard  for  peace 
or  human  liberty  than  had  his  prototype  in  Europe,  but  he 
had  liberated,  conquered,  and  constituted  the  republic  of 
Colombia  —  he  was  pursuing  his  conquests  into  Peru,  and 
constituting  another  mock  republic  there,  and  was  wearing 
himself  out  in  projects  of  investing  his  brow  with  an  imperial 
crown,  sparkling  before  his  eyes,  like  the  dagger  before  the 
vision  of  Macbeth.     Bolivar  thought  that  a  Congress  of 

Nations  at  Panama  might  serve  to  promote  some  of 
*  70     his   own  ambitious  purposes,   *   and  he  made  the 

proposition.  The  other  emancipated  colonies,  how- 
ever, and  especially  the  Mexicans,  were  jealous  of  his  designs, 
and  had  counter  projects  of  their  own." 

23.  The  inference  to  be  deduced  from  this  abortive 
attempt  at  a  Congress  of  Nations  is,  that  the  governments 
of  Christendom  are  willing  to  send  delegates  to  any  such 
Congress,  whenever  it  shall  be  called  by  a  respectable  state, 
well  established  in  its  own  government,  if  called  in  a  time 
of  peace,  to  meet  at  a  proper  place.  That  this  attempt  at 
a  Congress  of  Nations,  or  even  a  dozen  more,  should  prove 
abortive  on  account  of  defects  in  their  machinery  or  materials, 
ought  not  to  discourage  us,  any  more  than  the  dozen  incipient 


58  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

attempts  at  a  steam-boat,  which  proved  abortive  for  similar 
reasons,  should  have  discouraged  Fulton.  Every  failure 
throws  new  light  on  this  subject,  which  is  founded  in  the 
principles  of  truth  and  equity.  Some  monarch,  president,  or 
statesman  —  some  moral  Fulton,  as  great  in  ethics  as  he  was 
in  physics,  will  yet  arise,  and  complete  this  great  moral 
machine,  so  as  to  make  it  practically  useful,  but  improvable 
by  coming  generations.  Before  the  fame  of  such  a  man,  your 
Caesars,  Alexanders,  and  Napoleons  will  hide  their  dimin- 
ished heads,  as  the  twinkling  stars  of  night  fade  away  before 
the  glory  of  the  full-orbed  king  of  day.  It  is  remarkable  that 
the  first  intimation  of  the  last  two  abortive  attempts  at  a 
Congress  of  Nations,  —  abortive  because  deficient  in  consti- 
tution and  materials,  —  should  have  been  suggested  by  a 

private  individual. 
*  71  *  24.  My  remarks  on  the  past  attempts  at  some- 
thing like  a  Congress  and  Court  of  Nations,  mentioned 
in  this  chapter,  must  be  few.  It  is  obvious  to  the  reader  of 
historj^  that  I  have  selected  but  few  out  of  the  great  number 
of  these  attempts,  both  in  ancient  and  modern  times;  but  I 
have  taken  those  with  which  the  general  reader  is  best 
acquainted,  except  the  congress  of  Panama,  which  is  com- 
paratively recent  and  unknown,  and  in  which  our  country 
was  much  interested;  and,  therefore,  it  required  a  more 
extended  development.  It  is  equally  obvious,  that  from 
the  earliest  ages,  mankind  have  been  desirous  of  something 
like  the  proposed  Congress  and  Court  of  Nations,  especially 
in  communities  of  small  independent  states,  when,  from  the 
contiguity  of  the  parties,  such  a  plan  was  the  more  easy  to 
be  carried  into  effect,  and  more  necessary  to  their  safety, 
peace  and  happiness.  Many  of  these  attempts  were  emi- 
nently successful ;  and  though  they  partook  of  the  instability 
of  all  sublunary  things;  while  they  did  continue,  they  were 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  59 

a  great  blessing  to  the  parties  concerned,  and  often  to 
surrounding  nations. 

25.  There  are  some  features  in  these  past  attempts,  which 
would  be  retained  by  us,  as  essential  to  our  plan;  and  some 
as  decidedly  rejected.  We  should  adopt  the  pacific  part  of 
their  plans,  which  was  to  secure  peace  and  equity  among 
themselves,  though  it  was  but  a  secondary  consideration  to 
them,  as  necessary  to  their  existence  as  a  confederation. 
With  us,  this  pacific  principle  is  the  chief  motive.     The 

other  has  no  weight  at  all.  Ought  we  not  to  suppose, 
*  72     that  *  in  this  enlightened  age  of  the  world,  this  chief 

motive  would  be  sufficient  to  induce  Christian  nations 
to  make  the  safe  and  cheap  attempt,  when  the  good  to  be 
obtained  by  success  is  commensurate  only  with  the  extent 
and  duration  of  the  world?  Is  it  too  much  to  hope  that,  in 
this  age  of  reason  and  philanthropy,  the  preservation  of 
peace,  equity,  and  justice,  and  the  avoidance  of  all  the  sins 
and  horrors  of  war  may  be  a  sufficient  motive  to  induce 
Christian  nations  to  try  the  experiment  recommended  in 
these  Essays?  Our  plan  would  not  essentially  change  the 
existing  relations  of  nations  towards  each  other  with  respect 
to  peace  and  war,  by  any  direct  influence  on  the  subject.  It 
is  only  a  general  treaty  entered  into,  by  all  the  nations  with 
each,  and  by  each  nation  with  all,  that  henceforth  they  will 
endeavor  to  settle  their  controversies  with  one  another  by 
the  law  of  reason,  as  becomes  rational  creatures,  and  not  by 
the  law  of  violence  which  becomes  only  brutes;  and  that  if 
war  be  necessary  in  the  nature  of  things,  and  men  will  fight, 
they  shall  mutually,  and  jointly,  and  severally  agree,  that  they 
will  abandon  some  of  the  most  barbarous  features  of  war, 
and  protect  the  peaceful ;  and  that  they  will  seek  those  things 
which  make  for  the  peace  and  happiness  of  mankind  at  large. 
Therefore  our  plan  has  nothing  to  do  with  physical  force 


60  CONGRESS    OF   NATIONS 

and  leagues  offensive  and  defensive,  which  at  the  commence- 
ment of  the  abovementioned  councils,  leagues,  diets,  alliances, 
and  congresses,  sowed  the  seeds  of  their  dissolution ;  but  our 
plan  depends  entirely  on  the  influence  of  moral  power  for 
the  good  it  will  do  to  the  world,  but  it  retains 
*  78  the  *  expectation  of  settling  the  principles  of  inter- 
national law,  by  compact  and  agreement,  in  a  general 
treaty,  to  which  the  nations  of  Christendom  will  be  parties; 
and  it  also  retains  the  principle  and  practice  of  peaceful 
mediation  between  contending  factions  or  nations,  and  the 
promotion  of  every  plan  for  bettering  the  moral,  intellectual, 
and  physical  condition  of  man. 

26.  In  the  foregoing  plans,  the  number  of  delegates  from 
each  of  the  allied  nations  has  been  different  at  different 
unions.  The  best  way,  I  think,  is  to  allow  of  as  many  dele- 
gates to  the  Congress  of  Nations  as  any  government  would 
choose  to  send,  but  each  delegation  to  be  considered  as  a 
separate  college,  entitled  to  but  one  vote,  and  to  but  one 
turn  to  speak  in  the  discussions,  so  as  to  be  considered  as  but 
one  person,  and  if  any  college  should  be  equally  divided  on 
any  question,  of  course  their  vote  would  be  neutralized.  To 
avoid  this  difficulty,  the  number  in  each  college  might  be  an 
odd  one. 


*74  *CHAPTER   IX. 

SOME  ACCOUNT  OF  ATTEMPTS   WHICH    HAVE  BEEN   MADE  BY 

PRIVATE   INDIVIDUALS   AND   PEACE   SOCIETIES   TO   CALL 

THE  ATTENTION  OF  THE  PUBLIC  TO  THE  SUBJECT 

OF  A  CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 

1  William  Penn's  Essay — 2.  Essay  of  St.  Pierre — 3.  Monthly  Magazine— 4.  Lon- 
don Peace  Society — 5.  Massachusetts  Peace  Society — 6.  American  Peace 
Society — 7.  Premiums  oflFered — 8.  First  movements  in  Massachusetts — 9.  First 
petition  to  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts — 10.  Second  petition  to  the 
same — 11.  Petitions  to  Congress — 12.  Action  on  them — 13.  Remarks  on  Mr. 
Legare's  report — 14.  Further  petitions  to  Congress — 15.  Action  in  Switzer- 
land. 

1.  William  Penn  in  1693  published  an  "  Essay  on  the 
present  and  future  peace  of  Europe,"  in  which  he  urged  the 
plan  of  a  general  congress  for  the  settlement  of  international 
disputes,  and  referring  to  the  "  great  design  "  of  Henry  IV, 
he  says:  "  His  example  tells  us  that  this  is  fit  to  be  done. 
Sir  William  Temple's  history  of  the  United  Provinces  shows, 
by  a  surpassing  instance,  that  it  may  be  done,  and  Europe, 
by  her  incomparable  miseries,  that  it  ought  to  be  done."  *  I 
have  read  the  Essay.  It  is  chiefly  remarkable  for  having  been 
the  first  thing  of  the  kind  in  modern  times. 

2.  Charles  Castel  Irene  de  Saint  Pierre,  who  died  in 
*  75  the  year  1743,  and  who  must  be  distinguished  *  from 
the  author  of  the  Studies  of  Nature,  who  was  his 
nephew,  seems  to  have  been  the  author  of  the  next  published 
dissertation  on  a  Congress  of  Nations.  There  is  nothing 
left  of  this  Essay,  but  a  review  of  it,  which  is  pubhshed  among 

*  Herald  of  Peace. 
61 


62  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

the  works  of  John  James  Rousseau.  St.  Pierre  was  the 
originator  of  the  plan,  but  Rousseau  seems  to  have  admired 
it,  and  published  this  review  with  remarks  of  his  own.  The 
plan  of  St.  Pierre  and  Rousseau  was  a  confederation,  like 
the  Amphictj^onic  Council,  the  Helvetic  Union,  &c.  —  a 
system  of  legislation  and  arbitration  enforced  by  arms.  They 
adopt  the  error  common  to  ancient  and  modern  times,  that, 
*'  It  is  necessary  that  no  considerable  power  should  refuse." 
The  projector  makes  five  articles  necessary  to  the  confed- 
eracy. "  By  the  first,  the  contracting  sovereigns  should 
establish  among  themselves  a  perpetual  and  inviolable 
alliance,  appointing  plenipotentiaries  to  hold  a  fixed  and 
permanent  diet,  or  congress,  in  a  certain  place,  in  which  diet, 
all  the  differences  arising  between  the  contracting  parties 
shall  be  regulated  and  decided  by  way  of  arbitration."  The 
other  four  articles  show  how  the  decrees  of  the  diet  should 
be  enforced  by  arms;  and  undertakes  to  answer  some  objec- 
tions. The  author  then  recapitulates  the  evils  attending  the 
settlement  of  national  controversies  by  war,  under  thirteen 
heads,  and  opposes  to  them  the  advantages  by  arbitration, 
under  eight  heads.  Both  the  evils  and  advantages  are  too 
obvious  to  need  particular  notice.     Saint  Pierre  presented 

his  scheme  to  all  the  monarchs  of  Europe,  and  among 
*  76     the  rest  to  Louis  XV,  of  France.    *    Cardinal  Fleury, 

the  prime  minister,  pleasantly  told  the  author,  that 
"  he  had  forgotten  one  preliminary  article,  which  was  the 
delegation  of  missionaries  to  dispose  the  hearts  of  the  princes 
of  Europe  to  submit  to  such  a  diet."  The  peace  societies 
must  furnish  these  missionaries,  and  send  them  to  the  princes 
in  monarchical  governments,  and  to  the  people  in  mixed  and 
republican  governments.  Let  public  opinion  be  on  our  side, 
and  missionaries  will  not  be  wanting. 

3.  The  subject  of  a  Congress  of  Nations  seems  to  have 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  68 

slept  in  forgetfulness  amid  the  thunders  of  the  late  wars  in 
Europe,  when  the  attention  of  mankind  was  so  engrossed 
with  plans  of  mutual  destruction,  that  there  was  no  oppor- 
tunity for  the  "  still  small  voice  "  of  peace  to  be  heard.  Yet 
there  were  a  few  who  thought  on  the  evils  of  war,  and  sought 
a  remedy.  In  the  London  "  Monthly  Magazine  "  of  July, 
1811,  appeared  an  anonymous  letter  to  the  editor,  from 
which  I  make  the  following  extract:  "  It  appears  to  me, 
that  if  the  powerful  at  the  head  of  different  nations  would 
seriously  turn  their  thoughts  to  the  subject,  that  it  is  not 
without  some  probability,  that  a  National  Court  of  Arbi- 
tration might  be  established,  to  which,  when  two  nations 
disagree,  their  cause  might  be  referred ;  and  that  the  decision 
of  this  court  would  frequently,  if  not  always,  be  abided  by. 
Do  we  not  see,  when  a  difference  exists  between  two  people 
respecting  some  transaction  in  business,  that  the  cause  is 
referred  to  private  arbitration  and  the  decision  abided  by? 

Why,  therefore,  would  it  be  impossible  to  form  a 
*  77     national  court  of  arbitration?    I  *  rather  compare  a 

court  of  this  sort  to  an  arbitration  than  to  a  court  of 
justice;  for  in  an  arbitration,  the  parties  choose  their  friends 
to  be  settlers  of  the  dispute,  which  is  not  the  case  when 
people  go  to  law;  the  judge  and  jury,  perhaps,  are  all 
unknown  to  the  parties  differing.  Each  nation  might  send 
one  or  more  deputies  to  the  National  Court,  which  should, 
perhaps,  meet  at  different  places,  as  might  suit,  or  have 
one  permanent  place  of  assembling."  "  P.S.  Was  there 
ever  an  attempt  of  this  kind  acted  on?  "  These  few  thoughts 
appear  to  be  very  crude.  The  writer  does  not  seem  to  have 
been  aware  of  the  necessity  of  a  Congress  of  Nations, 
previous  to  a  Court  of  Nations,  to  organize  such  a  court, 
define  its  powers,  and  prescribe  the  principles  on  which  it 
should  judge;  nor  does  he  seem  to  be  aware,  that  if  "  each 


64  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

nation  send  one  or  more  deputies  to  the  National  Court," 
it  would  be  impossible  and  improper  for  "  the  parties  to 
choose  their  friends/'  to  be  settlers  of  a  dispute.  This  writer 
appears  to  be  ignorant,  that  any  one  else  ever  thought  of 
a  Court  of  Nations ;  and  I  never  saw  his  articles  until  I  had 
arrived  at  this  place  in  my  Essay.  Could  people  be  brought 
together  to  confer  on  this  plan,  nine  out  of  ten  of  the  decent 
people  of  Christendom  would  agree  to  it,  as  soon  as  they 
understood  it. 

4.  The  London  Peace  Society  has  always  been  friendly 
to  the  plan  of  a  Court  or  Congress  of  Nations,  as  appears 
by  the  following  extract  from  the  Herald  of  Peace,  which 

is  their  organ.  "  The  Court  of  Nations  is  the  end  of 
*  78     the  operations  of  the  peace  *  societies,"  but  it  has 

never  taken  any  decided  action  on  it,  until  lately. 
The  Herald  of  Peace  for  July,  1839,  contains  a  petition  to 
Parliament  on  the  subject  of  a  Congress  of  Nations,  which 
was  presented  on  the  12th  of  April  preceding,  by  Edward 
Baines,  Esq.,  member  for  Leeds,  and  in  the  House  of  Lords 
by  I  know  not  who.  I  mention  this  event  in  this  place  for 
the  purpose  of  preserving  the  connection.  But  as  it  is  best 
to  observe  the  order  of  time  in  the  Appendix,  I  have  given 
this  petition  the  place  of  No.  13. 

5.  There  is  nothing  in  the  publications  of  the  Massachu- 
setts Peace  Society  which  favors  the  idea  that  the  plan  for 
a  Congress  of  Nations  ever  engaged  the  attention  of  the  Rev. 
Noah  Worcester,  D.  D.,  the  venerable  founder  of  that  insti- 
tution, and  the  only  editor  of  '*  Friend  of  Peace,"  the  organ 
of  that  society,  or  of  any  one  of  its  members;  nor  do  we 
find  any  mention  of  the  plan  in  the  publications  or  proceed- 
ings of  any  other  peace  society  in  America  prior  to  the 
organization  of  the  American  Peace  Society. 

6.  The  American  Peace  Society  was  organized  at  a  meet- 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  65 

ing  commenced  on  the  8th  of  May,  1828,  in  the  city  of  New 
York.  The  following  is  an  extract  from  the  circular  letter 
accepted  at  that  time  by  the  Society,  which  shows  that  a 
Congress  of  Nations  was  a  prominent  object  with  the 
founders  of  it.  "  We  hope  to  increase  and  promote  the 
practice  already  begun,  of  submitting  national  differences 
to  amicable  discussion  and  arbitration,  and  finally  of  settling 
all  national  controversies  by  an  appeal  to  reason,  as  be- 
comes rational  creatures,  and  not  by  physical 
*  79  force,  *  as  is  worthy  only  of  brute  beasts,  and  this 
shall  be  done  by  a  Congress  of  Christian  Nations, 
whose  decrees  shall  be  enforced  by  public  opinion,  that  rules 
the  world ;  not  by  public  opinion  as  it  now  is,  but  by  public 
opinion  when  it  shall  be  enlightened  by  the  rays  of  the  gospel 
of  peace."  *  It  is  very  evident,  that  the  notions  of  the 
founders  of  the  American  Peace  Society  were  on  this  sub- 
ject very  crude  and  undigested,  when  they  sanctioned  and 
published  this  circular  letter.  It  has  been  by  constantly 
thinking,  writing  and  speaking,  on  this  subject,  for  eleven 
years,  that  their  ideas  have  got  to  be  more  mature ;  and  they 
now  see  that  a  distinction  ought  to  be  made  between  a 
congress  of  ambassadors,  for  the  purpose  of  settling  the 
disputed  points  of  the  law  of  nations,  and  a  court  of  judges, 
to  decide  cases  submitted  to  them  by  the  mutual  consent  of 
the  parties  concerned,  —  in  other  words,  a  distinction  be- 
tween the  legislative  and  the  judicial  power. 

7.  At  their  next  anniversary,  the  American  Peace  Society 
offered  a  premium  of  thirty  dollars,  for  the  best  dissertation 
on  a  Congress  of  Nations.  Only  four  or  five  dissertations 
were  handed  in,  and  all  of  them  of  a  very  ordinary  character. 
One  of  them,  however,  which  was  thought  rather  superior 
to  the  others,  with  the  consent  of  the  author,  was  published 

*  Harbinger  of  Peace,  Vol.  I,  p.  10. 


66  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

in   a   double    number   of   the    Harbinger    of    Peace    for 

January  and  February,  1881,  and  is  believed  to  be  the  first 

dissertation  on  a  Congress  of  Nations  ever  published 

*  80     in  *  America.     I  have  made  copious  extracts  from 

it,  in  writing  this  Essay.  Subsequently  the  Society 
offered  fifty  dollars  for  the  best  dissertation  on  the  subject, 
but  with  no  better  success.  The  premium  was  too  small ;  but 
the  funds  of  the  Society  did  not  allow  them  to  increase  it. 
The  subject  was  afterwards  taken  up  by  two  gentlemen  of 
New  York,  as  is  related  in  the  preface  to  the  volume  of  Prize 
Essays  on  a  Congress  of  Nations;  to  which  I  refer  the 
reader. 

8.  At  the  annual  meeting  of  the  American  Peace  Society, 
held  at  New  York,  May  11,  1830,  there  was  laid  before 
the  Society  a  letter  from  J.  P.  Blanchard,  Esq.,  Cor- 
responding Secretary  of  the  Massachusetts  Peace  Society, 
enclosing  an  abbreviated  copy  of  a  letter  to  him,  from  a 
gentleman  of  Boston,  not  a  member  of  any  peace  society, 
which  abbreviation  Mr.  Blanchard  was  directed  by  the 
Massachusetts  Peace  Society,  to  transmit  to  the  American 
Peace  Society.  In  this  letter,  the  gentleman  informs  the 
Massachusetts  Peace  Society,  through  their  secretary,  that 
he  had  penned  an  instrument,  and  offered  it  for  signatures, 
not  to  the  members  of  the  peace  societies,  —  who  might  have 
been  supposed  to  have  already  expressed  an  opinion  on  the 
subject,  —  but  to  those  who  had  no  connection  with  them. 
The  following  is  a  copy  of  the  instrument :  "  We  the  under- 
signed, convinced  of  the  great  advantages  and  blessings 
which  an  abolition  of  war,  and  the  reference  of  all  inter- 
national disputes  to  a  Court  of  Nations^  would  confer  on 

mankind,  heartily  concur  in  recommending  a  suitable 

*  81      reference  of  this  *  subject,  by  the  peace  societies, 

to  the  attention  of  Congress,  as  soon  as  such  a  ref- 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  ^ 

erence  shall  be  found  practicable  and  convenient."  Nine 
out  of  ten,  to  whom  this  instrument  was  presented,  signed 
it  without  hesitation,  and  those  who  declined  signing,  gen- 
erally expressed  their  approbation  of  it. 

9.  The  American  Peace  Society,  at  the  abovementioned 
annual  meeting,  approved  of  these  measures,  and  directed 
the  correspondence  to  be  published  in  the  Harbinger  of 
Peace,  which  was  done.*  They  entered  warmly  into  the 
measure,  and  struck  off  a  circular  containing  the  proposal, 
which  was  widely  circulated  among  the  most  intelligent  and 
influential  characters  in  New  England,  and  it  was  found 
that  almost  every  one  to  whom  the  instrument  was  presented 
signed  it,  amounting,  in  all,  to  several  thousands  of  names, 
besides  some,  which  from  inadvertence  or  accident,  were 
never  returned.  Considerable  time,  however,  elapsed  before 
the  friends  of  peace  thought  themselves  authorized  to  solicit 
the  aid  of  legislative  action  —  for  when  an  enterprise  of 
this  kind  has  to  be  carried  on  by  a  few  individuals,  who 
are  viewed  by  the  bulk  of  the  community  as  good-natured 
enthusiasts,  who  are  seeking  a  great  and  good,  but  unattain- 
able object,  and  where  the  ill  health  of  one  of  them 
causes  serious  embarrassment,  things  move  slowly.  A  small 
obstacle  impedes  the  ascending  wheel.    It  was  not  until  the 

year  1835,  that  the  subject  was  brought  before  the 
*  82     Legislature  of  the   State   *  of  Massachusetts  —  a 

State,  of  which  it  is  no  disparagement  to  any  other 
in  the  Union  to  say,  goes  before  all  the  rest  in  every  good 
work.  February  6,  of  this  year,  a  petition,!  praying  for  an 
expression  of  opinion  on  the  subject  of  a  Congress  of 
Nations,  signed  only  by  Thomas  Thompson,  Jr.,  and  William 
Ladd,  was  presented  by  the  Hon.  Sidney  Willard  to  the 
Senate,  who  took  the  same  into  consideration,  and  referred 

*  Harbinger  of  Peace,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  131,  and  seq.  t  Appendix,  No.  2. 


68  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

it  to  a  special  committee  of  three,  who  made  a  very  able 
report,*  favorable  to  the  prayer  of  the  petitioners,  accom- 
panied with  the  following  resolutions : 

"  Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  Legislature,  some 
mode  should  be  established  for  the  amicable  and  final  adjust- 
ment of  all  international  disputes,  instead  of  resort  to  war." 

''  Resolved,  That  the  Governor  of  this  Commonwealth  be 
requested  to  communicate  a  copy  of  the  above  report  and 
of  the  resolutions  annexed,  to  the  Executive  of  each  of  the 
States,  to  be  laid  before  the  Legislature  thereof,  inviting  a 
cooperation  for  the  advancement  of  the  object  in  view." 

This  report,  with  the  resolutions  appended,  was  adopted 
by  the  Senate  by  a  majority  of  19  to  5,  only  a  very  little 
having  been  said  against  it,  by  a  gentleman,  who,  needlessly, 
acknowledged  that  he  had  never  examined  the  subject. 
Before  this  report  was  made  and  adopted  by  the  Senate, 
it  had  got  to  be  too  late  in  the  session  to  carry  the  subject 
before  the  House,  and  nothing  more  was  done  on  it, 
*  83  in  the  Legislature  *  of  Massachusetts,  this  year.  The 
next  year,  Mr.  Thompson,  on  whose  perseverance  and 
diligence  the  cause  depended  in  a  great  measure  for  success 
with  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts,  was  confined  to  his 
house  by  sickness. 

10.  In  1837,  a  petition  was  presented  to  the  Legislature 
of  Massachusetts,  signed  only  by  Mr.  Thompson,!  and 
another,  signed  by  the  President  and  the  Executive  Com- 
mittee of  the  ^Massachusetts  Peace  Society.t  These  petitions 
were  referred  to  a  joint  committee  of  the  Senate  and  House 
of  Representatives,  which  committee  made  a  very  lengthy 
and  able  report,§  to  which  resolutions  were  appended  some- 
thing similar  to  those  appended  to  the  preceding  report,  but 

•Appendix,  No.  3.  t Appendix,  No.  5. 

t  Appendix,  No.  4.  §  Appendix,  No.  6. 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  69 

in  addition  calling  the  attention  of  the  Executive  of  the 
United  States  to  the  subject,  and  recommending  "  a  nego- 
tiation with  such  other  governments,  as  in  its  wisdom  it  may 
deem  proper,  with  a  view  to  effect  so  important  an  arrange- 
ment." This  report,  with  the  resolves  appended,  was 
adopted  by  the  Senate  by  a  majority  of  35  to  5,  and  by  the 
House,  without  a  dissenting  vote.  The  subject  was  subse- 
quently laid  before  the  Legislatures  of  Maine  and  Vermont, 
but  on  account  of  its  not  being  so  well  understood  in  those 
States  as  in  Massachusetts,  it  has  been  deferred ;  but  it  came 
very  near  being  favorably  received  by  the  Legislature  of 
Vermont,  where  it  was  lost  by  its  opponents  calling  party 

spirit,  that  bane  of  all  good,  to  their  aid. 
*  84         *  11.  The  American  Peace  Society  was  only  waiting 

for  the  sanction  of  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts, 
to  carry  the  subject  before  the  Congress  of  the  United  States. 
They  were,  however,  anticipated  by  the  New  York  Peace 
Society,  that  had  prepared  and  sent  on  a  very  able  petition  * 
to  Congress.  Instead  of  getting  up  a  new  and  separate 
petition,  the  American  Peace  Society  heartily  cooperated 
with  their  brethren  of  other  societies,  and  the  friends  of 
peace  in  general,  in  forwarding  copies  of  the  same  petition. 
There  were  presented  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  six 
petitions  of  members  of  the  New  York  Peace  Society  and 
others,  sent  by  Origen  Bachelor,  signed  by  608  persons; 
one  from  the  American  Peace  Society  and  others,  signed  by 
William  Ladd  and  539  legal  voters  in  the  State  of  Maine, 
and  generally  men  of  the  first  respectability;  one  from 
Thomas  Hough,  and  143  other  members  of  the  Vermont 
Peace  Society;  one  from  Thomas  Thompson,  Jr.,  and  135 
members  of  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts;  in  all,  1427 
names  besides  those  sent  to  the  Senate,  and  one  signed  by 

*  Appendix,  No.   7. 


70  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

most  of  the  gentlemen  of  the  bar  in  Augusta,  Hallowell, 
and  Gardmer,  in  Maine,  and  probably  others,  of  which  I 
have  no  information.    In  general,  more  attention  was  paid 
to  the  respectability,  than  to  the  number,  of  subscribers. 
12.  On  the  reception  of  these  petitions  by  the  House  of 

Representatives,  Mr.  Adams,  in  a  letter  to  the  author, 
*  85     remarks,  "  On  the  22d  of  March  last,  I  *  received 

your  memorial  signed  by  539  legal  voters  of  the  State 
of  JMaine,  and  on  the  23d  presented  it  to  the  House,  together 
with  that  of  Thomas  Thompson,  Jr.,  and  134  members  of 
the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts,  then  in  session.  A  memo- 
rial of  the  same  purport  had  been  previously  presented  by 
me,  signed  by  Origen  Bachelor,  and  425  members  of  the 
New  York  Peace  Society,  and  others.  At  certain  periods 
of  the  session,  I  had  presented  three  other  petitions  of  similar 
character,  and  Mr.  Evans  of  ISIaine,  and  my  colleague,  Mr. 
Gushing,  had  presented  others.  I  moved  the  reference  of 
the  first  to  a  select  committee.  The  Chairman  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  Foreign  Affairs  manifested  a  strong  inclination  to 
have  it  laid  on  the  table.  He  denied  that  any  proposition  for 
an  arbitration  of  differences  had  been  made  by  the  Mexican 
government,  but  was  afterwards  obliged  to  acknowledge,  in 
this  respect,  his  mistake.  But  he  moved  the  reference  of 
the  petition  to  his  own  committee,  and  it  was  so  referred. 
The  subsequent  petitions  on  the  same  subject,  including 
yours,  were  all  referred  to  the  same  committee.  They  were 
viewed  by  the  majority  of  the  House  with  great  jealousy, 
as  abolition  petitions,  or  petitions  against  the  annexa- 
tion of  Texas,  in  disguise."  *     The  petition  was  also  pre- 

*  The  follon'ing  are  extracts  from  a  letter  from  ex-president  Adams  to  the 
Corresponding  Secretary  of  the  New  York  Peace  Society: 

"  Your  petition  first  brought  to  the  notice  of  the  whole  government  of  these 
United  States  the  fact,  that  the  Mexican  Congress  had,  by  a  solemn  decree  of  the 
20th  of  May,  1837,  authorized  their  Executive  to  agree  with  our  government 


CONGRESS   OF  NATIONS  71 

*  86     sented  and  *  advocated  in  the  Senate  by  Mr.  Clay, 

and  ordered  to  be  printed,  but  there  was  not  suffi- 
cient time  to  act  on  it,  as  the  session  was  near  its  close, 
and  probably  the  Senate  waited  for  the  action  of  the 
House,  in  which  body  the  petitions  were  referred  to  the 
Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs,  according  to  the  request  of 
its  chairman. 

13.  The  report*  of  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs 
shows  how  little  our  popular  men  understand  the  subject. 
They  will  understand  it   better,   when   it  becomes   more 

popular.    When  we  consider  the  treatment  which  the 

*  87     first  motion  for  the  abolition  of  *  the  slave  trade 

met  with  in  the  British  Parliament  in  1776  —  that 
there  was  not  one  member  who  had  moral  courage  enough 
to  second  the  motion,  and  that  the  same  body  afterward, 
not  only  aboHshed  the  slave  trade,  but  slavery,  also,  in  the 

to  refer  the  differences  between  the  two  countries  to  an  arbitrator.  It  appeared 
at  first,  that  neither  the  President  of  the  United  States,  nor  their  Secretary  of 
State,  nor  their  Chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Relations  of  their 
House  of  Representatives,  knew  the  existence  of  the  Mexican  decree.  It  was 
to  your  petitions  that  Congress  were  indebted  for  the  knowledge  that  the 
Mexican  decree  existed. 

"  The  proposal  of  a  reference  to  arbitration  was  itself  so  reasonable,  that 
no  voice  was  heard  in  Congress  against  it.  The  denial  of  its  existence  pro- 
duced an  immediate  formal  communication  of  it  to  the  Executive  Administration 
of  the  United  States;  and  very  soon  afterwards,  it  was  conditionally  accepted. 
This  removed  all  immediate  danger  of  a  war  with  Mexico;  and  if  the  petitioners  of 
the  peace  societies  had  never  rendered  to  their  country  any  other  service,  they 
would  have  deserved  the  thanks  of  the  whole  nation  for  this. 

"The  other  proposals  of  your  petition,  urging  upon  the  Congress  and  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  a  course  of  policy  looking  to  the  promotion  of  universal 
peace,  and  for  that  purpose  to  the  formation  and  establishment  of  a  Congress  of 
Nations,  have  been  duly  considered  by  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Relations,  and 
they  have  submitted  to  the  House  a  report,  ten  thousand  copies  of  which 
have  been  ordered  to  be  printed.  The  close  of  the  present  session  of  Con- 
gress is  so  near,  that  there  will  not  probably  be  time  for  a  discussion  in  the 
House   on   its    principles." 

*  Appendix,  No.  8. 


72  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

British  West  Indies,  we  have  great  reason  to  hope  for  results 
equally  favorable. 

14.  Not  at  all  discouraged  by  a  result  which  they  had 
expected,  the  American  Peace  Society  forwarded  another 
petition  *  to  the  Congress  of  1838-9,  in  which  they  refute 
the  reasoning  of  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs.  The 
New  York  Peace  Society  also  sent  another  petition  for  a 
like  purpose.t  The  president  of  the  American  Peace 
Society  also  took  a  journey  to  Washington  to  attend  to  the 
furtherance  of  this  business,  and  had  a  special  interview 
with  the  President  of  the  United  States,  and  conversed  with 
some  of  the  leading  members  of  Congress,  from  all  of  whom 
he  gathered,  what  indeed  he  knew  before,  that  if  the  rulers 
in  representative  governments  are  to  be  induced  to  adopt 
any  new  measure  of  public  utility,  it  must  be  through  their 
constituents.  In  such  purposes  application  must  always  be 
made  chiefly  to  those  in  whom  the  sovereignty  is  estab- 
lished, —  to  monarchs  in  monarchical  governments,  to  the 
people  in  popular  governments,  and  to  both  in  mixed 
governments.  The  chief  use  of  such  petitions  in  popu- 
lar   governments    is,    to    bring    the    subject    before    the 

people  by  means  of  their  representatives.  President 
*  88     Van  *  Buren  said  he  had  noticed  the  report  of  the 

committee  of  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts,  which 
had  been  sent  to  him,  and  had  read  a  part  of  it,  but  had 
not  yet  communicated  it  to  Congress.  Before  either  the 
President  or  the  Congress  of  these  United  States  will  act 
on  this  subject,  the  sovereign  people  must  act,  and  before 
they  will  act,  they  must  be  acted  on  by  the  friends  of  peace ; 
and  the  subject  must  be  laid  before  the  people,  in  all  parts 
of  our  countrj'',  as  much  as  it  has  been  in  Massachusetts, 
where  there  has,  probably,  been  as  much  said  and  done,  on 

*  Appendix,  No.  9.  t  Appendix,  No.  10. 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  73 

the  subject,  as  in  all  the  other  twenty-five  states  of 
the  Union.  When  the  whole  country  shall  understand  the 
subject  as  well  as  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  will  be  as  favorable  to  a  Congress  of 
Nations  as  the  General  Court  of  Massachusetts;  and  when 
the  American  government  shall  take  up  the  subject  in 
earnest,  it  will  begin  to  be  studied  and  understood  by  the 
enhghtened  nations  of  Europe.  As  the  session  of  1838-9  was 
what  is  generally  called  the  short  session,  closing  on  the  4th 
of  March,  no  report  was  made  on  these  petitions,  which,  as 
usual,  had  been  committed  to  the  Conmciittee  on  Foreign 
Affairs.  Uncertain  what  would  be  the  fate  of  these  peti- 
tions, the  American  Peace  Society  thought  best  to  forward 
another  short  petition.*  Since  that  petition  was  sent  on, 
we  have  learned,  through  the  medium  of  the  public  journals, 

that  the  petitions  not  acted  on  during  the  session 
*  89      of  *  1838-9  are  continued  in  the  same  committees  to 

whom  they  were  referred,  to  be  acted  on  this  year 
[1839-40].  Beside  these  petitions,  shorter  ones,  signed  by 
many  persons,  have  also  been  sent  on  much  more  numerously 
this  year  than  ever  before.t  Very  able  petitions  have  also 
been  penned  by  private  individuals,  and  signed  by  almost  all 
the  citizens  of  the  neighboring  community. 

15.  The  attention  paid  to  the  subject  in  Great  Britain, 
and  the  petition  to  parliament,  we  have  noticed  before.t  It 
has  also  received  some  attention  on  the  continent  of  Europe, 
particularly  in  Switzerland.  The  late  Count  de  Sellon, 
member  of  the  Sovereign  Council  of  Geneva,  the  founder 
and  president  of  the  peace  society  of  that  canton,  offered 
a  prize  of  400  francs  for  the  best  dissertation  on  this  subject, 

*  Appendix,  No.  11. 

t  For  a  sample  of  these  petitions,  see  Appendix,  No.   12. 

J  Appendix,  No.  13. 


74  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

in  the  year  1880,  and  had  some  correspondence  with  the 
rulers  of  Europe  on  the  general  subject  of  peace,  which 
was  politely  and  favorably  answered;  but  so  extremely 
difficult  is  the  communication  between  this  country  and 
Switzerland,  that  we  are  much  in  the  dark  concerning  his 
movements.  The  time  will  come,  when  a  Congress  of 
Nations  will  establish  an  international  post-office  for  the 
whole  civilized  world.  Then  all  the  great  moral  enterprises 
will  move  on  with  an  accelerated  velocity. 


*90  *CHAPTER  X. 

ON    THE    OBJECTIONS    WHICH    MAY    BE    RAISED    AGAINST    A 
CONGRESS  AND  COURT  OF  NATIONS. 

1.  Objections  expected — 2.  Concentration  of  power — 3.  No  power  to  enforce  the 
decrees  of  the  Court — 4.  Danger  to  governments — 5.  Danger  to  republics — 
6.  The  present  mode  of  umpirage  sufficient — 7.  Expense — 8.  The  same  ob- 
jections lie  against  all  national  arbitration. 

1.  It  is  but  reasonable  to  expect  objections  against  our 
plan.  The  greater  part  of  the  world  are  opposed  to  inno- 
vations, and  consider  "  an  old  error  better  than  a  new  truth." 
It  is  much  easier  to  remain  in  error  than  to  attempt  im- 
provement. It  requires  no  effort  to  keep  still,  but  it  does 
to  advance.  Hence  the  progress  of  moral  reformation  is 
always  slow.  Mankind  are  apt  to  cry  like  the  slothful  man 
in  the  proverb,  "  There  is  a  lion  in  the  way."  But  we  should 
not  be  discouraged  for  all  this,  for  we  know  that  many  things 
have  been  accomplished  which  were  once  thought  as  imprac- 
ticable as  the  plan  which  we  propose ;  but  we  should  patiently 
continue  to  remove  objections  as  fast  as  they  are  brought 
up.  It  is  probable  that  similar  objections  were  started  when 
it  was  first  proposed  that  the  trial  by  jury  should  take  the 
place  of  the  ordeal  of  battle,  as  this  had  taken  the  place  of 
private  revenge,  assassination,  and  murder.  The  plan, 
*  91  which  we  propose  in  a  Congress  of  Nations,  *  is  a 
similar  advance  on  the  manners  of  the  age,  that  the 
trial  by  fair  battle,  regulated  by  well-known  and  acknowl- 
edged laws,  was  on  the  private  revenge  of  the  time  of 
Alfred  the  great;  and  the  Court  of  Nations  substitutes 

75 


76  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

an  appeal  to  reason  for  the  trial  by  battle,  or  an  appeal 
to  brute  force,  as  the  trial  by  jury  succeeded  the  ordeal  of 
battle. 

2.  The  first  objection,  raised  by  those  who  have  never 
looked  into  the  subject  —  which  class,  unfortunately, 
comprises  the  bulk  of  community  —  is,  that  we  are  for 
concentrating  too  much  power  in  the  hands  of  a  few  men, 
and  they  fancy  great  fleets  and  armies,  as  was  proposed  in 
the  Great  Scheme  of  Henry  IV.  It  is  a  sufficient  answer 
to  this  objection,  that  physical  power  to  enforce  the  laws  of 
our  Congress,  or  the  decrees  of  our  Court,  forms  no  part  of 
our  plan. 

3.  The  next  objection  which  we  shall  consider  is  of  quite 
the  contrary  character.  It  is  objected,  that  we  have  made  no 
provision  for  enforcing  the  laws  of  our  Congress  and  the 
decrees  of  our  Cotirt  by  physical  power,  fleets  and  armies; 
and  that,  therefore,  such  laws  and  judgments  would  prove 
entirely  abortive.  This  objection  is  somewhat  specious  and 
requires  consideration.  If  it  be  valid,  why  have  so  many 
wise  and  able  writers  taken  great  pains  to  compose  treatises 
on  the  Law  of  Nations.  None  of  these  writers  possessed  the 
physical  power  to  carry  their  laws  into  effect;  yet  their 
opinions  have  always  had  great  weight,  and  they  have  been 
considered  benefactors  to  mankind.     Now,  should  a  great 

number  of  able  civilians  convene  for  the  purpose  of 
*  92      discussing  the  *  various  points  of  international  law,  is 

it  not  likely,  that  they  would  much  better  express 
what  is  the  general  will  of  mankind  than  isolated  individuals 
shut  up  in  their  studies?  "Law  is  the  expression  of  the 
general  will,"  and  nothing  else,  whether  it  be  national  or 
international.  There  is  one  great  advantage  which  would 
attend  a  Congress  of  Nations,  which  is,  that  on  such  points 
as  are  difficult  to  settle  by  abstract  reasoning,  the  representa- 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  77 

tives  of  nations  could  agree  in  the  spirit  of  compromise.  The 
same  objection  would  lie  against  a  weak  power  ever  making 
a  treaty  with  a  strong  one.  All  these  laws  would  be  but  a 
treaty,  by  which  the  nations  represented  would  bind  them- 
selves to  observe  certain  principles,  in  their  future  inter- 
course with  one  another,  both  in  peace  and  in  war.  The 
same  objection  would  lie  against  leaving  any  dispute  to 
arbitrators;  for  no  person  expects  that  the  umpire  will 
enforce  his  award  by  military  power.  I  believe  that,  even 
now,  public  opinion  is  amply  sufficient  to  enforce  all  the 
decisions  of  a  Court  of  Nations,  and  the  "  schoolmaster  is 
abroad,"  and  public  opinion  is  daily  obtaining  more  power. 
If  an  Alexander,  a  Csesar,  a  Napoleon,  have  bowed  down 
to  public  opinion,  what  may  we  not  expect  of  better  men, 
when  public  opinion  becomes  more  enlightened  ?  The  pen  is 
soon  to  take  the  place  of  the  sword,  and  reason  is  soon  to  be 
substituted  for  brute  force,  in  settling  all  international  con- 
troversies. Already  there  is  no  civilized  nation  that  can 
withstand  the  frown  of  public  opinion.     It  is  therefore 

necessary,  only  to  enlighten  public  opinion  still 
*  93      farther,  to  insure  the  *  success  of  our  plan.     In 

civilized  countries  there  is  not  probably  one  tenth  part 
of  the  people  who  obey  the  laws  from  fear  of  the  sword  of 
the  magistrate.  Nine  persons  out  of  ten  fear  disgrace  more 
than  they  do  any  other  punishment;  and  men  often  inflict 
capital  punishment  on  themselves,  in  order  to  escape  from 
the  frown  of  public  opinion,  which  they  fear  more  than  death. 
It  is  true  that,  heretofore,  public  opinion  has  not  had  so  much 
influence  on  nations  as  on  individuals;  but,  as  intercourse 
between  nations  increases,  the  power  of  public  opinion  will 
increase.  Nations  make  war  as  individuals  fight  duels,  from 
fear  of  disgrace,  more  than  from  any  other  cause.  If  it  were 
disgraceful  to  go  to  war  when  there  is  a  regular  way  of 


78  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

obtaining  satisfaction  without,  wars  would  be  as  rare  as  duels 
in  New  England,  where  they  are  disgraceful. 

4.  Another  objection  is,  that  a  Congress  of  Nations  would 
he  dangerous  to  existing  forms  of  government,  particularly 
to  the  republican  form.  This  objection  has  been  urged  with 
considerable  plausibility  in  this  country ;  but  on  examination 
into  our  plan,  it  vanishes  of  itself.  The  Congress  of  Nations 
is  not  to  concern  itself  with  internal  affairs  of  nations,  but 
only  with  international  affairs,  and  could  have  nothing  to  do 
with  forms  of  government.  Besides,  no  member  of  the  con- 
federation is  bound  by  any  law  which  it  has  not  ratified; 
and  as  each  law  is  of  the  nature  of  an  article  of  a  treaty,  if 
supposed  to  be  dangerous  to  free  institutions,  the  delegates 

from  free  governments  would  not  vote  for  it,  and 
*  94     no  law  can  be  enacted  by  the  *  Congress  of  Nations 

without  an  unanimous  vote;  and  even  if  it  were 
passed,  if  it  were  not  ratified  by  all  the  nations  of  the  con- 
federacy, it  would  be  null  and  void,  like  an  article  of  an 
unratified  treatj'^.  And,  again,  as  the  Congress  of  Nations 
is  not  trusted  with  any  physical  force,  as  has  been  the  case 
with  many  of  the  confederacies  wliich  we  have  examined, 
and  was  to  have  been  the  case  in  the  Great  Scheme  of  Henry 
IV,  there  could  be  no  danger  of  a  nation  being  compelled 
to  change  its  form  of  government.  And  yet,  again,  the  same 
argument  would  be  equally  conclusive  against  any  treaty 
between  a  republic  and  a  monarchy. 

5.  But  still  the  objector  urges  that,  as  the  decrees  of  the 
Court  of  Nations  are  passed  by  a  majority  of  the  judges, 
as  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  and  not  by 
unanimous  consent,  as  in  the  Congress  of  Nations,  republics 
would  not  stand  so  good  a  chance  of  obtaining  justice  as 
monarchies,  which  would  be  more  numerously  represented 
in  the  Court  of  Nations,  and  the  judges  representing  them 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  79 

might  be  influenced  by  their  prejudices  against  repubhcs. 
To  this  we  answer,  that  it  is  not  certain  that  monarchies 
would  be  more  numerously  represented  than  republics  and 
limited  monarchies;  that  the  United  States,  a  republican 
government,  has  been  willing  to  leave  its  disputes  with  the 
crowned  heads  of  Europe,  to  other  crowned  heads,  without 
the  fear  of  partiaHty,  and  have  not  suffered  by  it.  The  same 
objection  might,  with  equal  plausibility,  be  urged  against  a 

trial  by  jury,  in  which  the  cause  of  a  catholic  may  be 
*  95     tried  by  a  jury  of  which  a  majority  *  are  protestants, 

or  a  person  of  one  political  party  by  a  jury  of  which 
a  majority  are  of  the  opposite  party.  We  do  not  pretend 
that  our  system  is  perfect,  for  there  is  nothing  perfect  on 
earth.  All  that  we  contend  for  is,  that  this  peaceful  mode 
of  settling  international  controversies  is  better  than  war, 
and  more  likely  to  give  a  righteous  verdict  without  the 
innimierable  evils  of  war. 

6.  It  has  been  objected,  that  we  have  now  many  precedents 
of  submitting  national  difficulties  to  umpires  agreed  on  by 
both  parties,  and  we  want  nothing  more.  It  is  true,  such 
references  of  international  difiiculties  have  often  taken  place 
of  late,  and  we  hail  them  as  auspicious  tokens  that  our  plan 
will  finally  succeed;  for  they  are  very  evident  approxima- 
tions to  it.  But  the  advantages  of  a  Court  of  Nations  over 
individual  umpirage  must  be  very  evident,  from  the  follow- 
ing considerations :  1st.  An  umpire  has  now  no  law  of  nations 
by  which  to  regulate  his  decisions.  It  is  granted  that  there 
have  been  many  able  writers  on  the  law  of  nations ;  but  their 
laws  are  sanctioned  by  no  authority,  and  they  do  not  agree 
among  themselves.  The  decisions  of  individual  umpires 
would  be  formed  by  no  rule  of  generally  acknowledged  law; 
and  would  often  be  different  imder  similar  circumstances; 
which  would  not  only  detract  from  their  moral  power,  but 


80  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

would  prevent  the  formation  of  a  body  of  international  com- 
mon law,  to  be  a  guide  to  future  decisions.    2d.  A  single 
umpire,  especially  a  crowned  head,  having  political  and 
commercial  relations  to  all  the  rest  of  the  world, 

*  96     cannot  be  expected  *  to  be  so  impartial  as  a  bench  of 

eminent  jurists,  selected  from  the  most  renowned  in 
their  own  country  for  their  talents,  integrity  and  experience, 
and  translated  from  the  highest  judicial  stations  in  their 
own  nation  to  fill  the  highest  judicial  station  in  the  world; 
especially  as  they  know  that  their  judgments  will  be 
re  judged  by  all  mankind,  and  to  the  latest  posterity.  With 
such  men,  the  desire  of  a  reputation  for  being  great  jurists 
has  been  their  ruling  passion  through  life  —  their  ultimate 
object;  and  a  stronger  motive  could  not  be  laid  before  them. 
They  may  err  in  judgment,  for  "  to  err  is  human,"  but 
they  would  not  be  so  likely  to  err  as  a  single  umpire,  and 
bribing  would  be  out  of  the  question;  and  if  one  could  pos- 
sibly be  bribed,  the  majority  of  them  could  not.  3d.  Such 
men  are  not  only  more  able  than  men  in  general  to  detect 
the  sophisms  and  false  reasoning  of  the  pleaders  of  either 
party  to  an  international  dispute,  but  they  are  more  able 
to  make  the  case  plain  to  all  the  world.  It  is  of  little  impor- 
tance for  a  judge  to  be  able  to  perceive  the  truth,  if  he  is 
not  able  to  make  the  truth  appear  plain  to  the  jury,  not  only 
as  to  matters  of  fact,  but  also  as  to  matters  of  argument. 
No  one  who  has  been  in  the  habit  of  attending  common  courts 
of  law  is  unconscious  of  something  like  this,  in  his  own  mind. 
One  barrister  gets  up  and  pleads  the  cause  of  his  client ;  and 
the  unpractised  juryman  thinks  that  the  truth  is  un- 
doubtedly with  him.  The  counsel  for  the  opposite  party 
pleads,  and  then  the  juryman  reverses  his  decision,  or  hangs 

in  doubt.     But  the  judge  takes  up  the  case,  strips 

*  97     the  ♦   falsehood   from  the  truth,   and  exposes  the 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  81 

sophistry  of  the  pleaders;  and  then  the  jury  unanimously 
agree  upon  a  verdict.  4th.  Experience  shows  how  much 
nations  prefer  a  numerous  body  of  umpires  to  a  single 
one.  Within  the  last  two  hundred  years  there  have  been 
fifty  congresses  for  the  settlement  of  international  difficul- 
ties, though  there  have  not  been  ten  cases  of  individual 
umpirage  in  the  same  time.  Had  there  been  a  Court  of 
Nations,  the  French  government  would,  probably,  have 
submitted  its  disputes  with  Mexico,  Buenos  Ayres,  and, 
perhaps,  with  queen  Pomare,  also,  to  it,  instead  of  deciding 
them  by  the  mouth  of  the  cannon;  for,  in  answer  to  the  offer 
of  England  to  mediate  between  France  and  Mexico,  the 
French  government,  through  its  official  organ,  the  Journal 
des  Debats,  replied :  "  No  foreign  tribunal  is  sufficiently 
elevated  to  impose  its  jurisdiction  "  in  the  premises.  These 
remarks  were  considered  by  the  court  of  London  as  coming 
from  an  official  source,  and  they  contain  a  precious  confes- 
sion, on  the  part  of  France,  that  there  is  great  need  of  such 
a  tribunal  as  the  Court  of  Nations,  which  would  be  "  suffi- 
ciently elevated  "  to  judge  this  and  similar  cases. 

7.  Some  may  be  disposed  to  object  to  our  plan,  on  account 
of  its  expense.  This  would  be  light  indeed  when  compared 
with  the  cost  of  war.  It  would  not  cost  a  nation  so  much 
as  the  maintenance  of  a  single  gun-boat,  nor  all  Christen- 
dom so  much  as  the  support  of  a  single  frigate  in  active 

service;  while  it  would  save  thousands  of  millions, 
*  98     pay  off  the  national  debts  *  of  all  countries,  reduce 

the  taxes  seven-eighths,  and  leave  a  large  fund  for 
internal  improvements,  education,  and  every  useful  work. 

8.  We  may,  therefore,  safely  conclude,  that  no  objection 
can  be  brought  against  our  plan  of  a  Congress  and  Court  of 
Nations,  which  is  not  equally  valid  against  all  legislative  and 
judicial  bodies;  that  the  system  is  safe  for  all  forms  of 


82  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

government;  that  its  expense  is  not  worth  naming;  and 
that  it  is  altogether  preferable  to  individual  umpirage,  as  it 
concentrates  the  public  opinion  of  the  whole  civilized  world, 
and  would  be  able  to  enforce  its  decrees  and  decisions  by 
moral  power  alone. 


*99  ^CHAPTER   XI. 

THE  EEASONS  WHICH  WE  HAVE  TO   HOPE  THAT  A  CONGEESS 

AND  COURT  OF  NATIONS  MAY  BE,  BEFORE  LONG, 

ESTABLISHED. 

1.  Every  thing  which  ought  to  be  done  can  be  done — 2.  Great  changes  haw 
taken  place — 3.  Individual  vengeance  of  former  times — 4.  Origin  and  progress 
of  society — 5.  Change  of  opinion  in  religious  persecution — 6.  On  piracy — 
7.  On  war — 8.  Amelioration  of  the  evils  of  war — 9.  Religious  wars  no  longer 
tolerated — 10.  Opinion  on  the  slave  trade  changed — 11.  Also  on  the  use  of 
alcohol — 12.  Improvements  in  civil  society — 13.  Increased  power  of  public 
opinion — 14.  Increased  intercourse  of  nations — 15.  Missionary  enterprise — 
16.  Disposition  to  arbitrate  international  difl5eulties — 17.  Improvement  in 
the  arts  of  destruction — 18.  The  ascending  side  of  justice — 19.  Favorable 
principle  in  human  nature — 20.  Prophecy. 

1.  It  is  an  incontrovertible  axiom,  that  every  thing  of  a 
moral  nature  which  ought  to  he  done,  can  he  done.  There 
is  no  object  favorable  to  the  happiness  of  mankind,  and 
fomided  on  the  immutable  principles  of  truth,  which  zeal, 
intelligence  and  perseverance,  with  self-sacrifice,  will  not 
finally  accomplish.  I  do  not  say  that  so  great  an  enterprise, 
as  a  Congress  of  Nations,  can  be  accomphshed  in  a  day. 
It  will  probably  be  of  slow  growth,  like  the  trial  by  jury, 
and  by  slow  degrees  it  will  ultimately  arrive  at  the  same 
approximation  to  perfection,  which  that  has  arrived  at. 
There  is  the  greater  need,  therefore,  that  those  who  favor 

the  object  should  begin  the  work  without  loss  of  time. 
*  100   If  we  wish  to  eat  of  the  date,  we  should  *  plant  the 

seed  immediately.  If  we  wish  our  children  to  see  the 
flower  of  the  aloe,  we  must  ourselves  begin  the  cultivation. 

2.  If  we  look  back  into  the  history  of  the  world,  we  shall 

83 


84  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

have  no  reason  to  doubt  the  truth  of  the  abovementioned 
axiom;  for  changes  have  taken  place  in  the  world  as  won- 
derful as  would  be  the  change  from  the  trial  of  international 
disputes  by  brute  force  and  the  chance  of  war,  to  the  trial 
of  such  disputes  by  reason  and  an  impartial  tribunal. 
Indeed,  such  changes  have  already  taken  place  with  respect 
to  individuals,  and  even  of  independent  states  confederated 
together  for  the  purpose,  though  on  a  small  scale.  I  shall 
briefly  allude  to  a  few  of  these  changes. 

8.  The  time  was,  when  every  individual  took  vengeance 
into  his  own  hands,  as  nations  do  now.    Even  among  the 
chosen  people  of  God,  the  avenger  of  blood  was  allowed  to 
pur§ue  the  manslayer,  and  if  he  overtook  the  homicide  before 
he  reached  a  city  of  refuge,  he  slew  him  without  a  trial.    This 
practice,  but  without  the  city  of  refuge,  still  obtains  among 
the  savage  nations  of  America,  the  Arabs,  and  in  many  parts 
of  Greece.    When,  therefore,  Alfred  the  great  instituted  the 
ordeal  by  battle  and  regulated  revenge  by  law  and  gave  it 
the  sanction  of  religion,  it  was  considered  a  great  advance 
on  the  barbarous  manners  of  the  age.    Bringing  the  custom 
of  war  —  which  is  nothing  else  than  the  custom  of  unregu- 
lated robbery,  revenge  and  assassination  —  under  certain 
rules   and  regulations,   avoiding  much  of   its   frequency, 
abating  its  cruelty,  and  diminishing  the  number  of 
*  101    persons  *  who  should  be  considered  combatants,  would 
prepare  the  way  for  subjecting  the  whole  system  to 
a  trial  by  reason  and  the  Court  of  Nations,  as  the  ordeal  by 
battle  was  gradually  changed  into  the  Grand  Assize,  which 
was  substituted  for  it  by  St.  Louis,  of  France,  and  Henry 
II,  of  England,  after  an  existence  of  five  centuries.    This 
amelioration  began  by  exempting  certain  characters  from  the 
trial  by  battle ;  then  certain  causes  were  excluded ;  then  other 
causes,  under  certain  circumstances,  as  when  compurgators, 


CONGRESS    OF   NATIONS  85 

or  jurors,  would  swear  to  the  innocence  of  the  accused,  — 
but  the  juror  was  liable  to  be  challenged  by  the  prosecutor, 
—  the  accused  could  not  be  compelled  to  risk  life  or  limb  a 
second  time,  under  the  same  accusation,  and  many  other 
ameliorations  were  gradually  introduced,  until  the  judicial 
combat  became  entirely  obsolete  in  all  countries  where  it  had 
existed;  and  the  only  shadow  of  it  left  is  the  modern  duel, 
though  it  has  not  been  ten  years,  since  the  trial  by  battle, 
in  all  cases,  was  formally  expunged  from  the  statute  law  of 
England.  Formerly,  the  judicial  combat  was  almost  uni- 
versal in  Christendom,  and  was  impiously  called  an  "  appeal 
to  heaven,"  and  was  preceded  by  fasting  and  prayer,  as  the 
custom  of  war  is  now.  If  this  custom  of  the  duel  or  private 
war,  once  sanctioned  by  church  and  state,  has  been  denounced 
by  both,  why  may  not  the  custom  of  war,  in  due  time,  share 
the  same  fate? 

4.  The  origin  and  progress  of  society  also  affords  a  hope, 
that  a  trial  of  international  disputes  by  a  regularly  consti- 
tuted court,  judging  by  known  and  acknowledged 
*  102  laws,  may  in  time  take  the  place  of  *  the  ordeal  of 
war.  Small  bodies,  like  the  independent  states  of 
Greece,  Italy,  Germany,  Gaul,  the  Saxon  Heptarchy,  the 
Hanse  Towns,  the  Helvetic  Union,  &c.,  have  voluntarily 
congregated  together,  not  only  for  the  purpose  of  mutual 
defence  against  a  foreign  power,  but  for  mutual  defence 
against  each  other.  These  found  it  necessary  to  constitute 
certain  councils  and  diets,  which  were  as  successful  in  secur- 
ing peace  among  the  several  members  of  the  league,  as  could 
reasonably  have  been  expected,  considering  the  darkness, 
ignorance,  and  belligerent  spirit  of  the  times  in  which  they 
existed;  and  were  bright  spots  in  the  history  of  those  dark 
ages.  But  they  admitted  two  principles  among  them,  which 
destroyed,  at  length,  their  utility,  and  from  which  our  plan 


86  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

is  free.  The  first  of  these  was,  the  enforcement  of  their 
decrees  by  the  power  of  the  sword,  instead  of  depending  on 
moral  power  alone.  The  other  evil,  which  attended  their 
organizations,  was  the  union  of  the  legislative,  judiciary  and 
executive  powers  in  one  body.  This  introduced  intrigue, 
ambition,  and  many  other  baleful  passions  and  practices, 
which  strongly  tried  their  principles  of  peace  and  justice; 
but  with  all  these  disadvantages,  —  such  is  the  force  of  the 
principles  which  we  advocate,  —  they  continued  f o  preserve 
peace  among  themselves  for  centuries,  with  but  little  inter- 
ruption; and  when  they  fell,  they  fell  rather  by  external 
violence  than  internal  dissensions. 

5.  The  change  of  opinion  on  the  necessity  of  religious 

persecution  warrants  the  hope,  that  it  will  likewise 
*  108   change  on  the  necessity  of  war.    There  was  *  a  time 

when  religious  persecution  was  thought  as  necessary 
to  the  safety  of  the  church  as  war  is  now  to  the  safety  of  the 
state ;  and  this  opinion  was  peculiar  to  no  sect,  for  Protestants 
were  persecutors  as  well  as  Catholics.  The  fires  of  perse- 
cution were  lighted  up  in  all  parts  of  the  Christian  world, 
and  rivers  of  blood  flowed,  for  the  vain  purpose  of  procuring 
an  uniformity  of  faith  and  practice  in  the  affairs  of  religion ; 
but  who  now  would  dare  to  raise  his  voice  in  favor  of  reli- 
gious persecution?  If  so  wonderful  a  change  in  public 
opinion  has  taken  place  with  respect  to  religious  wars,  why 
may  we  not  expect  a  similar  change  with  respect  to  political 
wars? 

6.  Piracy  was  practised  and  honored  by  the  polished 
Athenians,  who  plundered  and  enslaved  all  who  were  not 
Greeks;  and  piracy  has  been  allowed,  and  even  honored, 
almost  to  the  present  day.  Sir  Thomas  Cavendish,  a  famous 
pirate,  flourished  about  the  year  1590,  and  the  celebrated 
Dampiere,  about  a  centiuy  later.    The  latter  was  advanced 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  87 

to  the  command  of  the  sloop  of  war  Roebuck.  Charles  II 
knighted  Morgan,  a  famous  pirate,  and  gave  him  the  com- 
mand of  one  of  his  ships  of  war.  Now  who  is  there  to 
advocate  piracy?  It  is  true,  privateering  is  but  licensed 
piracy,  and  we  can  hardly  conceive  the  difference  between 
the  unlicensed  pirate  and  the  foreigner  who  ships  on  board 
a  privateer,  to  fight  against  a  country  with  which  his  own 
is  at  peace,  and  to  rob  and  murder  those  who  never  injured 
him  or  his  country.  The  time  is  not  far  distant  when, 
though  war  may  be  continued,  such  men  will  be 
*  104  treated  *  as  pirates,  and  the  whole  system  of  priva- 
teering abandoned  by  the  mutual  consent  of  all 
civilized  nations,  assembled  by  their  ambassadors  in  a  Con- 
gress of  Nations. 

7.  The  great  change  which  has  lately  taken  place  in  public 
opinion,  on  the  lawfulness  and  expediency  of  war,  affords 
a  hope  that  this  change  will  go  on,  until  the  time  shall  come 
when  it  will  be  thought  neither  glorious,  just,  nor  wise,  to 
conquer  foreign  countries,  and  thereby  load  the  conquering 
country  with  debts  and  taxes,  as  well  as  the  conquered 
nation.  Once  it  was  different.  Lord  Bacon  was  of  opinion, 
that  war  was  as  necessary  to  the  welfare  of  the  state,  as 
exercise  to  the  health  of  a  man.  Hobbes  maintained  that 
there  was  no  obligation  of  justice  between  nations;  and  that 
wars  for  conquest  and  spoil  were  authorized  by  the  law  of 
nature.  Fenelon,  the  amiable  archbishop  of  Cambray,  in 
his  Telemachus,  advises  his  prince  to  send  his  subjects  into 
foreign  wars,  to  acquire  a  martial  spirit  and  disseminate  it 
among  their  countrymen.  But  Frederic  the  great,  though 
a  great  conqueror,  considered  that  no  conquest  he  ever  made 
was  worth  one  year's  interest  of  the  money  it  cost.  Franklin 
thought  that  there  never  was  a  good  war,  nor  a  bad  peace. 
Jefferson  was  an  honorary  member  of  the  Massachusetts 


88  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

Peace  Society,  and  so  was  the  emperor  Alexander.  Cassimir 
Perrier,  the  late  lamented  prune  minister  of  France,  was 
eminently  a  man  of  peace,  and  so  is  Lord  Brougham,  and 
even  Daniel  O'Connell.  This  change  of  opinion,  on  the 
subject  of  war,  indicates  that  a  change  of  measures  is  not  far 

distant  in  the  vista  of  time. 
*  105  *  8.  The  amelioration  of  the  physical  evils  and  suf- 
ferings of  war  warrants  a  belief,  that  they  may  be 
further  ameliorated,  until  war  comes  to  be  attenuated  to  a 
mere  shadow  of  what  it  has  been.  It  may  be  true  that  "  the 
natural  state  of  man  is  war,"  as  was  affirmed  by  Hobbes;  but 
Christianity  has  begim  to  modify  the  natural  state  of  man, 
and  its  first  step  was  a  mitigation  of  the  horrors  of  war.  For- 
merly, poison  and  assassination  were  practised  by  civilized 
nations,  as  they  are  still  by  barbarians.  Christianity  has 
abolished  those  customs.  But  Christian  nations  still  starve 
their  enemies  in  masses,  and  assassinate  them  by  wholesale. 
Formerly,  all  the  inhabitants  of  an  enemy's  country  were 
treated  alike,  and  were  enslaved  or  killed.  Now,  the  greater 
part  are  considered  as  non-combatants,  and  their  life  and 
liberty  are  spared ;  and  there  is  reason  to  hope  that  this  list 
of  non-combatants  will  be  farther  enlarged,  so  as  to  embrace 
all  men  following  their  peaceful  business,  whether  by  sea 
or  land.  Formerly,  all  the  property  of  the  enemy  was  con- 
sidered lawful  prize  to  the  captor.  Now,  private  property 
on  shore  is  respected ;  and  we  have  reason  to  hope,  that  this 
amelioration  will  advance,  until  private  property  shall  be 
respected  on  the  ocean,  at  least  under  a  neutral  flag.  Why 
may  not  these  ameliorations  continue  to  go  on,  until  war 
becomes  a  mere  matter  of  form  and  nonintercourse? 

9.  There  are  many  things  which  were  formerly  thought 
justifiable  causes  of  war,  which  are  thought  so  no  longer. 
Once  it  was  thought  right  to  propagate  Christianity  by 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  89 

*  106   the  sword  I    Crusades  were  preached  *  up,  not  only; 

against  the  pagans,  but  against  various  sects  of  Chris- 
tians, and  they  were  thought  agreeable  to  justice  and  the 
gospel  of  the  Prince  of  peace.  Once,  wars  for  conquest  and 
spoil  were  justified,  and  conquerors  extolled  to  the  skies  and 
almost  deified.  Now,  public  opinion  is  so  far  corrected,  that 
wars  to  propagate  the  Christian  religion  are  never  thought 
of,  and  wars  for  conquest  and  plunder  are  reprobated,  and 
those  who  engage  in  them  are  compelled,  by  the  power  of 
public  opinion,  to  issue  a  manifesto  to  show  the  justice  of 
their  cause;  for  men  now  fight  professedly  for  justice.  A 
little  more  light  will  show  mankind  that  the  sword  is  a  capri- 
cious arbiter  of  justice;  and  were  there  an  adequate  tribunal, 
no  government  could  without  disgrace  appeal  to  the  sword 
for  justice,  at  least,  until  it  had  invited  its  adversary  to  refer 
their  disputes  to  that  tribunal.  Nations  are  now  not  justified 
in  resorting  to  war,  until  they  have  tried  every  other  mode  of 
redress ;  and  war  is  called  "  the  last  resort  of  kings,"  simply 
because  there  never  has  been  an  international  tribunal  on  an 
extended  scale. 

10.  The  great  change  in  public  opinion  which  has  taken 
place  with  respect  to  the  slave  trade,  warrants  the  hope, 
that  a  similar  change  may  take  place  with  respect  to  war. 
This  trade  was  carried  on  for  centuries,  with  the  approbation 
of  the  Christian  public ;  and  millions  of  our  fellow-creatures 
have  been  carried  into  hopeless  bondage.  Yet  it  was  not 
until  the  year  1776,  that  any  attempt  was  made  to  abolish 

it;  and  that  attempt  was  met  with  a  more  decided 

*  107    rejection,  *  by  the  British  parliament,  than  our  peti- 

tions for  a  Congress  of  Nations  have  met  with  from 
the  American  congress.  The  advocates  of  the  abolition  of 
the  slave  trade  were  then  treated  with  greater  contempt  than 
the  advocates  of  the  abolition  of  war  are  now.     Yet  the 


00  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

former  succeeded  beyond  their  most  sanguine  expectations, 
and  similar  success  may  attend  the  advocates  of  peace. 

11.  The  great  change  in  public  opinion,  which  has  taken 
place  with  respect  to  the  benefit  to  be  derived  from  the  use 
of  ardent  spirits,  warrants  a  hope,  that  a  similar  change  will 
take  place  at  no  distant  day,  with  respect  to  the  utility  of 
war.  Once,  alcohol  was  thought  as  necessary  to  the  health 
of  a  man,  as  war  is  now  to  the  safety  of  the  state ;  but  alcohol 
is  now  denounced  as  poison,  and  the  time  is  not  far  distant 
when  war  will  be  considered  a  greater  evil  than  alcohol.  Not 
long  since,  the  advocates  of  total  abstinence  from  all  that 
can  intoxicate,  were  considered  fanatics ;  but  their  wonderful 
success  shows  the  power  of  truth  when  properly  presented. 
JMany,  who  once  considered  the  trade  in  ardent  spirits  lawful, 
have  now  abandoned  it.  The  same  may  take  place  with 
respect  to  the  trade  of  war. 

12.  The  improvements  in  civil  society,  which  have  been 
increasing  since  the  last  great  war  in  Europe,  in  a  geometri- 
cal ratio,  warrant  the  behef,  that  mankind  will  adopt  a  more 
rational  and  civilized  mode  of  settling  their  disputes  than 
the  barbarous  custom  of  war.  Arms  have,  in  a  great  meas- 
ure, given  place  to  laws.    Formerly,  a  man  had  no 

*  108  other  way  of  acquiring  *  celebrity,  than  being  great  in 
fight,  and  in  emulating  savage  beasts  in  the  display 
of  courage  and  ferocity.  The  arts,  the  sciences,  politics, 
jurisprudence,  travels,  inventions,  and  the  benevolent  enter- 
prises of  the  day,  furnish  more  rational  fields  for  the 
ambitious.  Emulation  in  the  works  of  benevolence  is  taking 
place  of  emulation  in  the  arts  of  destruction. 

18.  The  late  improvement  in,  and  increased  power  of, 
public  opinion  furnish  another  guaranty  of  peace.  Glory 
and  conquest  are  no  longer  acknowledged  as  justifiable 
causes  of  war.     Every  war  requires  a  manifesto  in  which 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  91 

the  justification  of  war  measures  is  attempted.  Even  Napo- 
leon himself,  in  the  plenitude  of  his  power,  trembled  at  the 
shaking  of  a  pen,  in  the  hand  of  a  British  reviewer.  No  army, 
no  fortress,  can  withstand  the  attacks  of  public  opinion. 
It  reaches  the  tyrant  on  the  throne,  and  the  conqueror  on 
the  field  of  battle,  and  stings  through  the  folds  of  purple 
and  the  coat  of  mail.  "  Arms  cannot  kill  it.  It  is  invul- 
nerable, and,  like  Milton's  angels,  *  Vital  in  every  part,  it 
cannot,  but  by  annihilation,  die.'  "  *  Public  opinion  is  daily 
becoming  more  powerful,  because  more  enlightened;  for 
"  great  is  the  truth,  and  it  will  prevail,"  and  finally  triumph 
for  ever  over  brute  force. 

14.  The  increased  intercourse  of  nations  is  another  guar- 
anty of  peace.    It  was  the  former  policy  of  nations  to  be  as 

independent  of  one  another  as  possible  —  withdraw- 
*  109   ing  within  themselves  like  a  tortoise,  to  *  look  on 

security  from  external  danger  as  the  chief  end  of 
government;  without  exchanging  the  gifts  of  kind  Provi- 
dence with  other  nations,  by  means  of  that  great  highway, 
the  ocean,  which  he  has  created  for  the  purpose  of  exchanging 
the  surplus  products  of  one  nation  for  the  superfluities  of 
another ;  and  thus  relieving  the  necessities  of  all.  Under  this 
Chinese  system,  mankind  became  prejudiced,  morose  and 
misanthropic,  and  considered  the  depression  of  a  neighboring 
coimtry  the  elevation  of  their  own.  Nations  now  begin  to 
see,  that  God  has  made  mankind  for  a  system  of  mutual 
dependence  on  one  another,  and  that  the  more  we  are  depend- 
ent on  another  nation,  the  more  that  nation  is  dependent 
on  us  —  that  to  impoverish  our  customers  is  not  to  enrich 
ourselves,  and  that  the  more  we  buy  of  other  nations,  the 
more  they  will  buy  of  us.  Hence  a  wonderful  spring  has 
been  given  to  commerce  —  all  climates  are  brought  into 

*  D.  Webster. 


92  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

juxtaposition,  and  the  superfluities  of  one  climate  minister 
to  the  wants,  the  comforts,  and  the  luxuries  of  another.  This 
happy  state  of  things  is  interrupted  by  war;  and  the  evils  of 
war  are  found  not  only  in  the  tax-book  of  the  belligerent, 
but  in  the  workshop,  and  on  the  farm  and  plantation  of  the 
neutral.  The  manufacturers  and  merchants  of  England 
would  have  found  their  advantage  in  paying  all  the  claims 
of  France  on  Mexico,  if  that  would  have  prevented  the  block- 
ade of  La  Vera  Cruz.  Though  the  United  States  were 
almost  the  only  carriers  in  the  world,  during  the  late  wars 

in  Europe,  yet  they  found  their  commerce  so  crippled 
*  110    and  *  restricted  by  war,  that  they  preferred  a  state 

of  war  itself  to  neutraUty.  The  world  has  at  length 
found  out,  that  it  is  for  the  interest  of  every  nation  to  keep 
all  the  other  nations  at  peace. 

15.  The  union  of  almost  all  Christian  nations  in  spread- 
ing the  gospel  of  peace  over  the  world,  is  another  of  the 
signs  of  the  times  favorable  to  the  cause  of  permanent  and 
universal  peace.  In  the  dark  ages.  Christian  nations  united 
in  arms,  and  bishop-generals  led  their  mailed  monks  and 
vassals  to  Palestine,  for  the  purpose  of  wresting  an  empty 
sepulchre  from  the  hands  of  the  infidels,  by  sword  and  spear. 
In  the  words  of  Anna  Conmena,  "  All  Europe  was  emptied 
on  Asia."  They  took  the  sword,  and  they  perished  by  the 
sword.  Now,  an  holier  enterprise  is  on  foot,  more  consistent 
with  the  genius  of  Christianity.  Christians  have  again  gone 
forth,  but  armed  with  the  *'  sword  of  the  Spirit,  which  is 
the  word  of  God ;  "  and  their  design  is  to  conquer  the  world 
and  to  bring  it  under  the  mild  sceptre  of  the  Prince  of  peace; 
and  every  wind  brings  us  news  of  their  success  in  one  quarter 
or  another.  War  would  put  a  stop  to  all  these  peaceful  con- 
quests, not  only  by  stopping  all  intercourse,  but  by  a  still 
worse  consequence  —  the  example  of  fighting  Christians  on 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  98 

those  they  are  seeking  to  convert  to  the  gospel  of  peace. 
With  what  reluctance  must  the  missionaries  inform  the  new 
converts,  that  their  stations  must  be  abandoned,  because  the 
Christian  nations,  that  had  ministered  to  their  support,  were 
engaged  in  mutual  slaughter!    Every  one  who  sup- 

*  111    ports  the  missionary  *  cause  will,  if  consistent,  favor 

the  cause  of  peace  and  a  Congress  of  Nations. 

16.  A  disposition  among  the  nations  of  Christendom  to 
mediate  and  to  arbitrate,  is  another  of  the  signs  of  the  times, 
which  is  highly  auspicious  to  the  cause  of  permanent  and 
universal  peace.  Never,  before,  was  there  such  a  disposition 
to  avoid  war.  Belgium  and  Holland  have  referred  their  dis- 
putes to  England  and  France.  Great  Britain  and  America 
have  referred  their  disputes  to  Russia  and  Holland.  The 
United  States  and  Mexico  have  called  on  the  king  of  Prussia 
as  an  umpire  between  them ;  and  the  benevolent  exertions  of 
Christian  nations  have  extended  beyond  Christendom,  and 
the  five  great  powers  of  Europe  have  offered  to  mediate 
between  the  Grand  Sultan  and  the  Pacha  of  Egypt.  This  is 
indeed  the  "  era  of  good  feelings;  "  and  the  time  is  at  hand, 
when  no  nation  will  venture  on  war  before  an  offer  of  arbi- 
tration, without  disgrace  bordering  on  execration.  Now,  if 
the  arbitration  of  an  individual  imipire  is  good,  the  judgment 
of  a  regular  Court  of  Nations  is  better,  for  the  reason  already 
shown ;  so  that  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt,  that  such  a 
court  will,  ere-long,  be  established. 

17.  Even  the  late  improvement  in  the  arts  of  destruction, 
and  the  increased  expense  of  war,  are  a  security  for  the 
continuance  of  peace.  It  is  true,  many  of  the  barbarous 
and  protracted  torments  of  ancient  warfare,  such  as  poison, 
and  the  starvation  and  crucifixion  of  prisoners  have  ceased 

among  Christians,  but  the  means  of  immediate  de- 

*  112    struction  have  greatly  *  increased.     The  congreve- 


94  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

rocket,  the  torpedo,  the  newly  invented  bomb  and  bul- 
let, the  steam-frigate,  and  many  others  in  contemplation, 
afford  means  of  immediate  destruction  unknown  to  the 
ancients,  or  to  modern  nations  not  yet  converted  to  Chris- 
tianity; and  they  enable  the  machinist  to  be  more  efficient 
in  destroying  human  life  than  the  hero.  The  increased 
expense  of  carrying  on  war  by  these  terrible  engines,  rather 
than  by  human  machines,  will  occasion  a  great  increase  of 
the  burthens  of  war,  and  will  make  it  more  difficult  to  raise 
the  requisite  amoimt  of  taxes ;  and  this  will  turn  the  attention, 
both  of  rulers  and  subjects,  to  a  cheaper  method  of  settling 
international  disputes. 

18.  The  ascending  scale  of  justice,  from  the  mayor's  or 
justice's  courts,  to  the  inferior  and  the  superior  courts,  and 
finally  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  wants 
but  one  step  more  to  complete  the  system,  and  that  is  a 
court  which  shall  settle  disputes  between  sovereign  and  inde- 
pendent nations  in  the  same  manner  as  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  has  settled  many  cases  of  disputes 
between  the  several  sovereign  and  independent  States  of 
North  America,  without  ever  yet  having  caused  the  shedding 
of  one  drop  of  blood.  The  Admiralty  court  of  Great  Britain 
affects  to  be  a  court  of  appeals  to  decide  cases  between  the 
British  government  and  foreigners,  by  the  law  of  nations, 
when  not  restrained  by  acts  of  parliament;  but  it  is  not 
independent,  nor  is  its  authority  acknowledged  out  of  the 
British  empire.  The  several  diets  of  the  various  confedera- 
tions of  Europe  are  humble  imitations  of  a  Court  of 
*  118  Nations,  in  reference  to  the  members  of  *  the  confed- 
eracy by  which  they  have  been  organized.  Only  one 
step  further  and  we  have  a  Court  of  Nations.  There  is  great 
reason  to  hope,  that  this  step  will  ere-long  be  taken,  and  the 
scale  of  justice  completed. 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  95 

19.  There  is  one  general  principle  of  human  nature,  which 
ought  not  to  be  left  out  of  our  account,  and  that  is,  that 
when  men  meet  together  with  a  sincere  desire  of  doing  any- 
thing which  ought  to  be  done,  that  very  desire  and  that  very 
meeting  are  guaranties  that  the  thing  they  contemplate  will 
be  done.  Now  if  a  convention  of  delegates  from  the  chief 
powers  of  Christendom  should  meet  together,  with  a  sincere 
desire  to  organize  a  Congress  and  Court  of  Nations,  it  is 
absurd  to  suppose  they  cannot  do  it. 

20.  The  above  arguments  and  facts  which  go  to  show 
that  the  time  is  near  when  Christian  and  civilized  nations 
will  seek  some  other  arbiter  than  the  sword  to  settle  their 
disputes,  are  amply  sufficient  to  convince  any  unprejudiced 
mind  of  the  practicability  of  the  plan  which  we  propose.  But 
as  I  am  writing  for  those  nations  that  profess  to  believe  in 
the  divine  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  I  draw  my 
concluding  argument  from  them.  From  the  many  prophe- 
cies which  predict  a  time  of  permanent  and  universal  peace, 
I  select  only  one.  "  But  in  the  last  days,  it  shall  come  to 
pass,  that  the  mountain  of  the  house  of  the  Lord  shall  be 
established  in  the  top  of  the  mountains,  and  it  shall  be  exalted 
above  the  hills;  and  people  shall  flow  unto  it.  And  many 
nations  shall  come,  and  say,  Come,  and  let  us  go  up  to 

the  mountain  of  the  Lord,  and  to  the  house  of 
*  114   the  God  *  of  Jacob;  and  he  will  teach  us  of  his  ways, 

and  we  will  walk  in  his  paths;  for  the  law  shall  go 
forth  of  Zion,  and  the  word  of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem. 
And  he  shall  judge  among  many  people,  and  rebuke  strong 
nations  afar  off ;  and  they  shall  beat  their  swords  into  plough- 
shares, and  their  spears  into  pruning-hooks :  nation  shall  not 
lift  up  a  sword  against  nation,  neither  shall  they  learn  war 
any  more.  But  they  shall  sit,  every  man  under  his  vine  and 
under  his  fig-tree ;  and  none  shall  make  them  afraid :  for  the 


96  CONGRESS    OF   NATIONS 

mouth  of  the  Lord  of  hosts  hath  spoken  it"  Micah  4: 1^-4. 
Now,  though  we  may  reasonably  expect,  from  the  promises 
of  God,  and  the  signs  of  the  times,  that  the  period  is  not 
far  distant,  when  wars  will  cease;  yet  we  cannot  reasonably 
expect,  that  while  man  remains  the  same  selfish  creature  he 
is,  disputes  and  contentions  will  altogether  cease;  but  that 
very  selfishness  will  induce  him  to  seek  some  cheaper,  safer 
and  surer  way  of  obtaining  justice,  than  war;  and  a  Court 
of  Nations  will  be  both  the  cause  and  effect  of  the  perpetual 
cessation  of  war.  Mankind  have  tried  war  long  enough  to 
know  that  it  seldom  redresses  grievances,  and  that  it  gener- 
ally costs  more  than  the  redress  is  worth,  even  when  it  is  most 
successful;  and  "  that,"  to  use  the  words  of  Jefferson,  "  war 
is  an  instrument  entirely  inefficient  toward  redressing  wrong; 
that  it  multiplies  instead  of  indemnifying  losses."  What, 
then,  shall  hinder  the  nations  from  adopting  a  cheap  and  sure 
mode  of  redress,  such  as  a  Court  of  Nations  promises?  — 
what  but  blindness  to  their  own  happiness,  which  cannot 
always  endure? 


*115  *CHAPTER  XII. 

ON  THE  BENEFITS  WHICH  WOULD  BE  LIKELY  TO  ACCRUE  FEOM 
A  CONGRESS  AND  A  COURT  OF  NATIONS. 

1.  Little  need  be  said  under  this  head — 2.  Code  of  international  law — 3.  Court 
of  Nations — 4.  Conservators  of  the  peace  of  nations — 5.  Abatement  of  taxa- 
tion— 6.  Saving  of  human  life — 7.  Moral  evils  of  war  prevented. 

1.  Much  need  not  be  said  on  this  subject  after  the  pre- 
ceding chapters,  as  it  would  be  only  a  repetition  of  argu- 
ments. In  fact,  the  advantages  are  so  obvious,  that  it  is 
not  necessary  to  say  much;  but  I  will  mention  a  few  par- 
ticulars not  before  stated,  or  but  slightly  alluded  to. 

2.  One  advantage  to  be  derived  from  a  Congress  of  Na- 
tions is  a  code  of  international  law,  no  longer  dependent 
on  the  conflicting  and  changing  opinions  of  civilians,  but 
solemnly  agreed  upon,  after  mature  deliberation,  by  the 
nations  represented  by  their  wisest  men,  and  confirmed  by 
the  respective  governments,  like  a  treaty  of  peace  or  com- 
merce. Every  nation,  every  independent  state,  every  city 
and  body  corporate,  nay,  even  every  voluntary  association, 
thinks  it  necessary  to  have  a  well-defined  code  of  laws,  by 
which  to  regulate  their  conduct  with  one  another.     Why, 

then,  should  not  the  community  of  nations  have  such 
*  116   a  code  of  laws,  mutually  agreed  on  *  and  promulgated, 
so  as  to  be  read  and  known  by  all  men? 

3.  If  it  is  necessary  to  have  such  a  code  of  laws,  it  is  no 
less  necessary  to  have  an  independent  body  of  men,  author- 
ized and  commissioned  to  interpret  those  laws,  instead  of 
leaving  every  state  to  make  that  interpretation  which  siuts 
its  own  interest. 


98  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

4.  It  would  be  a  great  advantage  to  the  world,  to  have  a 
respectable  body  of  men  to  act  as  conservators  of  the  peace 
of  nations,  whose  office  it  should  be,  when  they  saw  a  war 
brewing  between  any  two  nations,  to  offer  their  mediation, 
and  propose  terms  of  compromise.  Often  a  nation,  like  an 
individual,  goes  to  war  for  honor,  when  she  would  be  very 
glad  to  refrain,  were  it  not  from  fear  that  her  courage  or 
her  power  would  be  suspected.  In  such  cases,  a  mediator, 
like  the  Court  of  Nations,  would  generally  keep  the  peace 
of  nations. 

5.  Submission  of  international  disputes  to  a  Court  of 
Nations  would  relieve  the  people  of  most  nations  of  seven- 
eighths  of  their  taxes.  It  is  computed  that  750,000,000 
of  dollars  are  annually  drawn  from  the  pockets  of  the 
people  of  Europe,  for  the  purposes  of  keeping  up  war- 
establishments  in  time  of  peace;  nearly  all  of  which  could 
be  spared,  and  either  left  for  the  increased  enjoyments  of 
all  classes  of  community,  or  expended  in  internal  improve- 
ments, or  in  common  schools,  academies  and  colleges.  If  the 
governments  of  Europe  would  adopt  the  measure  of  a 
simultaneous  disarmament,  they  might  do  it  without  fear, 

and  spend  the  sums,  now  lavished  on  armies,  in 
*  117    increasing  the  *  comforts  and  education  of  the  poor, 

for  then,  they  would  have  no  occasion  for  standing 
armies  to  keep  the  people  in  subjection;  and  the  wealth  so 
expended  would  soon  be  returned  to  government,  with  inter- 
est, from  the  increased  ability  of  their  subjects  to  pay  taxes, 
and  the  increased  ability  of  all  classes  of  the  people  to  pur- 
chase the  luxuries  of  life,  which  might  still  be  sufficiently 
taxed,  while  the  necessaries  of  life  might  be  left  free  from 
taxation. 

6.  The  saving  of  money,  now  lavished  in  supporting  stu- 
pendous naval  and  military  establishments,  would  be  of  small 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  99 

consideration,  when  compared  with  the  saving  of  human  life, 
by  a  pacific  policy.  It  is  supposed  that  the  average  life  of 
a  soldier  in  war  does  not  exceed  three  years.  The  celebrated 
Neckar  calculated,  that  one  third  of  new  recruits  perished 
the  first  year  by  the  hardships  of  a  military  life.  Of  the 
victims  of  war,  probably  not  one  in  ten  ever  feels  the  stroke 
of  an  enemy.  Who  can  tell  the  amount  of  physical  suffering 
endured  in  war,  when  the  most  civilized  nations  of  the  world 
bend  all  their  ingenuity,  arts,  and  knowledge  to  the  single 
purpose  of  inflicting  the  greatest  possible  amount  of  suffer- 
ing on  one  another? 

7.  But  the  physical  evils  and  pains  of  war  are  "  trifles 
light  as  air,"  when  compared  with  its  moral  evils,  and  the 
contamination  of  the  fleet  and  the  camp,  "  where,"  as  Dr. 
Doddridge  says,  in  his  Life  of  Colonel  Gardiner,  "  the 
temptations  are  so  many,  and  the  prevalence  of  the  vicious 

character  so  great,  that  it  may  seem  no  inconsiderable 
*  118   praise  and  felicity,  to  be  *  free  from  dissolute  vice ;  and 

the  few  who  do  escape,  should  be  recorded  heroes 
indeed,  and  highly  favored  of  Heaven."  The  celebrated 
Robert  Hall,  in  a  sermon  against  war,  says,  "It  is  the 
fruitful  parent  of  crimes.  It  reverses,  with  respect  to  its 
object,  all  the  rules  of  morality.  It  is  nothing  less  than  a 
temporary  repeal  of  all  the  principles  of  virtue.  It  is  a 
system  out  of  which  almost  all  the  virtues  are  excluded ;  and 
in  which  nearly  all  the  vices  are  incorporated."  Now  if  a 
Court  of  Nations  should  prevent  but  one  war  in  a  whole 
century,  all  the  trouble  and  expense  of  organizing  such  a 
Court  would  be  amply  repaid. 


♦119  *CHAPTER   XIII. 

MEANS  TO  BE  USED  FOE  THE  PUEPOSE  OF  OBTAINING  A  CON- 
GRESS  OF   NATIONS. 

1.  The  same  means  as  are  used  in  other  moral  enterprises — 2.  Miseries,  crimes, 
and  sins  of  war  exposed — 3.  Enlighten  the  people. 

1.  The  means  of  hastening  "  a  consummation  so  devoutly 
to  be  wished,"  as  the  organization  of  a  Congress  and  Court 
of  Nations,  are  much  the  same  as  those  which  have  been  used, 
to  further  other  benevolent  operations  of  the  day.  When 
Sharpe,  Wilberforce  and  Clarkson  attempted  the  great 
reformation  which  they  so  successfully  accomplished,  they 
began  with  exposing  the  horrors  and  crimes  of  the  slave 
trade.  Persons  were  employed  to  collect  facts,  and  lay 
them  before  the  public  in  popular  lectures.  The  press  was 
engaged  in  showing  the  cruelty  and  injustice  of  the  traffic, 
by  tracts  and  newspaper  essays;  and  the  pulpit  thundered 
its  anathemas  against  it.  By  the  united  attacks  of  this  triple 
alliance,  the  strongholds  of  the  slave  trade  were  demolished ; 
and  nations  which  had  before  sanctioned  it,  now  pronounced 
it  piracy. 

2.  Let  the  same  be  done  in  the  cause  of  Peace.  Let  the 
miseries,  the  crimes,  the  sins  of  war  be  detected,  and  vi\adly 

portrayed  before  the  power  that  rules  the  nation.  In 
*  120   republican  governments  and  *  limited  monarchies,  this 

power  lies  in  the  people.  It  is  vain  to  expect,  that 
governments  will  be  moved,  imtil  the  people  are  —  for,  in 
representative  governments,  all  reforms  must  necessarily 
commence  with  the  people.    In  countries  where  the  power 

100 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  101 

lies  in  a  monarch,  he  must  be  addressed,  on  the  subject;  for, 
in  such  governments,  it  is  the  monarch  who  chiefly  gives  the 
tone  to  public  opinion,  though  he  himself  is  often  under  its 
influence.  All  monarchs  love  to  be  popular  at  home  and 
abroad.  Like  other  men,  they  love  praise,  or  glory,  as  they 
call  it,  and  will  fight  for  it,  so  long  as  fighting  insures  them 
the  applause  of  the  world.  The  same  men  would  pursue  a 
pacific  policy,  if  it  were  more  popular;  and  we  have  reason 
to  hope,  that  there  are  even  some  who  would  do  so,  if  it  were 
not  popular.  Henry  IV,  though  a  monarch  almost  absolute, 
devised  a  plan,  the  professed  object  of  which  was  nearly  the 
same  as  ours,  though  the  means  of  its  accomplishment,  and 
the  manner  in  which  it  was  to  be  conducted,  were  very  dif- 
ferent from  ours.  He  was  seconded  by  Elizabeth,  queen  of 
England,  whose  power  was  limited  by  a  parliament,  of  which 
a  part  was  elected  by  the  people  and  a  part  was  an  hereditary 
aristocracy;  and  by  Switzerland  and  other  confederated 
republics.  The  form  of  government  was  no  obstacle  to  the 
*'  great  proposal,"  nor  would  it  be  to  our  Congress  of 
Nations. 

3.  Though  we  indulge  high  expectations  from  such  mon- 
archs as  the  present  king  of  Prussia,  who  has  shown  himself 

to  be,  in  many  things,  far  in  advance  of  the  spirit  of 
*  121    the  age,  yet  our  hope  relies  *  chiefly  on  the  United 

States,  Great  Britain,  and  France,  pretty  much  in 
proportion  to  the  voice  which  the  people  have  in  the  govern- 
ment. The  first  step,  then,  is  to  enlighten  the  people,  as 
has  been  done  in  the  State  of  Massachusetts;  and  they  will 
call  on  their  State  Legislatures  with  success,  as  they  have 
done  in  that  State,  and  as  they  have  done  in  Maine  and  Ver- 
mont, but  the  people  being  less  enlightened  on  the  subject, 
in  these  two  States,  the  cause  has  not  yet  met  with  similar 
success   there.      The   people   need   more   light.     When   a 


102  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

majority  of  the  State  Legislatures  shall  call  on  the  general 
government,  in  as  decided  a  tone  as  ^lassachusetts  has  done, 
Congress  will  fall  in  with  the  plan,  for  it  will  be  popular. 
Our  government  will  then  call  on  the  government  of  Great 
Britain,  where  light  has  been  spreading;  and  the  British 
government  will  yield  to  the  solicitation  of  its  own  subjects, 
and  our  Executive;  and  both  together  will  call  on  France. 
If  no  more  than  these  three  powers  are  gained,  the  cause  is 
ours;  and  the  Congress  of  Nations  may  go  into  immediate 
operation;  and  when  the  delegates  of  these  three  powers  are 
assembled,  they  may  extend  their  invitation  to  the  other  pow- 
ers of  Christendom.  Switzerland,  where  much  has  already 
been  done  on  the  subject,  would  soon  join,  and  the  South 
American  republics,  as  soon  as  they  have  consolidated  their 
governments.  The  confederations  of  Germany,  with  Bel- 
gium, Holland,  Denmark,  and  Sweden,  would  not  be  back- 
ward,  as  soon  as  they  saw  that  the  plan  was  likely  to 

succeed.  The  philantliropic  and  enlightened  king  of 
*  122    Prussia  *  would  not  be  far  behind  them;  and  Russia 

and  Austria  would  not  see  such  great  movements 
going  on,  without  taking  a  part;  but  they  would  go  on, 
whether  these  powers  took  a  part  in  them  or  not.  Spain, 
Portugal,  and  Italy  would  come  at  last;  and  it  would  be  no 
wonder,  if  this  generation  should  not  pass  away  before  the 
Grand  Sultan  and  the  Bey  of  Egypt  will  submit  their  dis- 
putes to  a  Court  of  Nations.  The  storm  of  war  would  soon 
be  hushed  in  Christendom,  and  that  main  obstacle  to  the 
conversion  of  the  heathen  being  removed,  Christianity  would 
soon  spread  all  over  the  world. 


*128  *CHAPTER   XIV. 

ON  THE  DUTY  OF  ALL  MEN,  BOTH  RULERS  AND  SUBJECTS,  TO 
ENDEAVOR  TO  OBTAIN  A  CONGRESS  OF  NATIONS. 

1.  Nations  have  no  moral  right  to  declare  war,  until  they  have  exhausted  all  the 
means  of  preserving  peace — 2.  The  physical  evils  of  war  should  be  prevented — 
3.  Also  the  moral  evils— 4.  Neglect  of  duty. 

1.  It  is  a  generally  acknowledged  principle,  that  nations 
have  no  moral  right  to  go  to  war,  until  they  have  tried  to 
preserve  peace  by  every  lawful  and  honorable  means.  This, 
the  strongest  advocate  for  war,  in  these  enlightened  days, 
will  not  deny,  whatever  might  have  been  the  opinion  of  man- 
kind, on  the  subject,  in  darker  ages.  When  a  nation  has 
received  an  injury,  if  it  be  of  such  a  magnitude  as,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  injured  party,  ought  not  to  be  submitted  to; 
the  first  thing  to  be  done  is  to  seek  an  explanation  from  the 
injuring  nation;  and  it  will  be  often  found,  that  the  injury 
was  unintentional,  or  that  it  originated  in  misapprehension 
and  mistake,  or  that  there  is  no  real  ground  of  offence.  Even 
where  the  ground  of  offence  is  undeniable,  and,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  world,  the  injured  nation  has  a  right  to 
declare  war,  it  is  now  generally  believed,  that  they  are 
not  so  likely  to  obtain  redress  and  reparation  by  war  as 

by  forbearance  and  negotiation;  and  that  it  is  their 
*  124   bounden  *  duty,  both  to  themselves  and  to  the  world 

at  large,  to  exhaust  every  means  of  negotiation,  before 
they  plunge  themselves  and  other  nations  into  the  horrors 
and  crimes  of  war.  The  United  States  had  much  ground 
of  complaint  against  Great  Britain,  during  Washington's 

103 


104  CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS 

administration.  Instead  of  declaring  war,  Jay  was  sent  to 
England,  and  full  and  complete  satisfaction  was  obtained 
for  all  the  injuries  received,  by  the  influence  of  moral  power 
alone,  for  we  had  not  then  a  single  ship  of  war  on  the  ocean. 
At  a  subsequent  period,  with  twice  the  population,  and 
twenty  times  the  means  of  offence,  impatient  of  a  protracted 
negotiation,  we  resorted  to  war,  and  got  no  reparation  of 
injuries,  or  satisfaction  whatever,  except  revenge,  bought 
at  an  enormous  expense  of  men  and  money,  and  made  peace, 
leaving  every  cause  of  complaint  in  the  statu  quo  ante  helium. 
Had  we  protracted  the  negotiation  thirty  days  longer,  the 
war  and  all  its  evils,  physical  and  moral,  would  have  been 
avoided.  Sometimes  negotiations  have  failed  altogether  to 
obtain  redress.  Then  an  offer  of  arbitration  should  follow. 
Now  what  we  are  seeking  for  is,  a  regular  system  of  arbi- 
tration, and  the  organization  of  a  board  of  arbitrators, 
composed  of  the  most  able  civilians  in  the  world,  acting  on 
well-known  principles,  established  and  promulgated  by  a 
Congress  of  Nations.  If  there  were  such  a  Court,  no 
civilized  nation  could  refuse  to  leave  a  subject  of  interna- 
tional dispute  to  its  adjudication.    Nations  have  tried  war 

long  enough.  It  has  never  settled  any  principle,  and 
*  125   generally  leaves  *  dissensions  worse  than  it  found 

them.  It  is,  therefore,  high  time  for  the  Christian 
world  to  seek  a  more  rational,  cheap,  and  equitable  mode  of 
settling  international  difficulties. 

2.  A^Tien  we  consider  the  horrible  calamities  which  war 
has  caused,  the  millions  of  lives  it  has  cost,  and  the  unut- 
terable anguish  which  it  produces,  not  only  on  the  battle- 
field and  in  the  military  hospital,  but  in  the  social  circle  and 
the  retired  closet  of  the  widow  and  orphan,  we  have  reason 
to  conclude,  that  the  inquisition,  the  slave  trade,  slavery, 
and  intemperance,  all  put  together,  have  not  caused  half 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  105 

so  much  grief  and  anguish  to  mankind  as  war.  It  is  the 
duty,  therefore,  of  every  philanthropist,  and  every  statesman, 
to  do  what  they  can  to  support  a  measure  which  will  prob- 
ably prevent  many  a  bloody  war,  even  if  the  probability  were 
but  a  faint  one. 

3.  When  we  consider  that  war  is  the  hotbed  of  every  crime, 
and  that  it  is  the  principal  obstacle  to  the  conversion  of  the 
heathen,  and  that  it  sends  millions  unprepared  suddenly 
into  eternity,  every  Christian  ought  to  do  all  he  can  to 
prevent  the  evil  in  every  way  in  his  power,  not  only  by 
declaiming  against  war,  and  showing  its  sin  and  folly,  but 
by  assisting  to  bring  forward  a  plan  which  is  calculated  to 
lessen  the  horrors  and  frequency  of  war.  Should  all  the 
endeavors  of  every  philanthropist,  statesman  and  Christian 
in  the  world  be  successful  in  preventing  only  one  war,  it 

would  be  a  rich  reward  for  their  labor.  If  only  once  in 
*  126    a  century,  two  nations  should  *  be  persuaded  to  leave 

their  disputes  to  a  Court  of  Nations,  and  thereby  one 
war  be  avoided,  all  the  expense  of  maintaining  such  a  court 
would  be  repaid  with  interest. 

4.  We  therefore  conclude,  that  every  man,  whether  his 
station  be  public  or  private,  who  refuses  to  lend  his  aid  in 
bringing  forward  this  plan  of  a  Congress  and  Court  of 
Nations,  neglects  his  duty  to  his  country,  to  the  world,  and 
to  God,  and  does  not  act  consistently  with  the  character  of 
a  statesman,  philanthropist,  or  Christian. 


♦127  *CHAPTER   XV. 

RECAPITULATION  AND    CONCLUSION. 

Pabt  I.  1.  Division  of  the  subject — 2.  Organization  of  a  Congress  of  Nations — 
3.  Subjects  to  be  discussed — 4.  Rights  of  belligerents — 5.  Rights  of  Neutrals 
— 6.  Objects  of  a  civil  nature — Pabt  II.  1.  Of  a  Court  of  Nations — 2.  Ex- 
amples of  attempts  at  similar  institutions — 3.  Attempts  of  individuals  and 
peace  societies — Pabt  III.  1.  Objections  met — 2.  Reasons  of  hope — 3.  Bene- 
fits to  be  derived — 4.  Means  to  be  used — 5.  Duty  enjoined — Pabt  IV.  1.  Con- 
clusion and  appeal. 

I  FIND  I  have,  without  any  previous  design,  divided  my 
subject  into  the  four  following  distinct  parts: 

I.  1st.  I  have  shown  what  our  object  is.  In  this  I  have 
differed  from  the  preceding  authors,  and,  also,  from  my  own 
previous  writings  on  this  subject,  by  dividing  it  into  two 
distinct  branches,  viz.,  1st.  A  Congress  of  Nations  for  the 
establishment  of  a  code  of  international  laws  and  other 
purposes  promoting  the  peace  and  happiness  of  mankind; 
and,  2d,  a  Court  of  Nations  entirely  distinct  from  the  Con- 
gress, though  organized  by  it,  for  the  purpose  of  arbitrating 
or  adjudicating  all  disputes  referred  to  it  by  the  mutual 
consent  of  two  or  more  contending  nations.  The  first  I 
would  call  the  legislative,  the  second  the  judiciary  power, 
entirely  distinct  from  it  —  the  first  periodical,  the  other 
perpetual.  For  the  executive  we  trust  to  public 
*  128  opinion.  2d.  I  have  treated  of  the  *  organization  of 
the  Congress  of  Nations,  composed  of  delegates  from 
such  powers  as  should  choose  to  be  represented  there,  each 
delegation  to  be  as  numerous  as  the  nation  sending  it  should 
choose,  but  entitled  to  only  one  voice  or  vote ;  and  the  recep- 

106 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  107 

lion  of  new  members  is  provided  for.  3d.  I  have  mentioned 
some  of  the  subjects  to  be  discussed,  such  as  the  rights  of 
belligerents  toward  each  other,  and  the  possibility  of  lessen- 
ing the  physical  evils  of  war.  4th.  I  have  treated  of  the 
rights  of  belligerents  toward  neutrals,  which  should  be  clearly 
defined;  and,  5th,  the  rights  of  neutrals  established  and 
enlarged.  6th.  I  have  also  touched  on  some  principles  of 
a  civil  nature,  which  might  be  settled  by  this  Congress  of 
Nations. 

II.  1st.  I  have,  secondly,  given  my  views  of  a  Court  of 
Nations  organized  by  the  Congress,  for  the  peaceful  adjudi- 
cation of  such  international  disputes  as  should  be  referred 
to  it  by  the  mutual  consent  of  any  two  or  more  contending 
nations;  and,  2d,  I  have  given  some  examples,  taken  from 
both  ancient  and  modern  history,  of  institutions  somewhat 
similar  to  a  Congress  and  Court  of  Nations,  among  which, 
I  dwelt  particularly  on  the  Congress  of  Panama,  and  showed 
the  reasons  of  its  failure  —  reasons  not  likely  to  occur  again; 
and,  3d,  I  have  given  an  account  of  some  of  the  attempts  of 
private  individuals  and  peace  societies  to  call  the  attention  of 
mankind  to  this  subject. 

III.  1st.  I  have  also  stated  the  common  objections  which 
are  raised  against  a  Congress  or  Court  of  Nations,  and 

*  129  have  endeavored  to  answer  them ;  and  *  have,  2d, 
stated  some  of  the  reasons  which  we  have  to  hope 
that  this  plan  will,  at  no  distant  day,  be  carried  into  effect; 
and,  3d,  have  endeavored  to  show  a  few  of  the  benefits  which 
would  accrue  from  it.  4th.  I  have  shown  the  means  by  which 
^his  great  work  may  be  accomplished;  and,  5th,  produced  a 
few  of  the  arguments,  to  show  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
every  man  to  do  all  he  can,  to  assist  in  bringing  it  for- 
ward. 

IV.  In  conclusion,  I  would  only  remark,  that  if  we  have 


108  CONGRESS    OF   NATIONS 

done  no  other  good,  by  procuring  and  publishing  these 
Essays,  we  have  set  up  a  landmark,  for  the  guidance  of  those 
who  may  succeed  us.  When  the  American  Peace  Society 
first  entered  on  this  work,  there  were  only  two  Essays  in 
the  whole  world  on  the  subject,  viz.,  Penn's  and  St.  Pierre's, 
both  very  meagre,  crude  and  undigested.  Beside  these,  we 
had  only  what  could  be  gathered  from  Sully's  account  of 
the  Great  Scheme  of  Henry  IV.  Now  within  these  ten 
j'cars,  there  have  been  about  fifty  dissertations  written,  many 
lectures  delivered,  and  petitions  presented  to  State  legis- 
latures, and  resolutions,  favorable  to  the  plan,  passed.  Peti- 
tions have  also  been  presented  to  the  American  congress, 
with  a  report  on  them  widely  circulated,  and  a  petition  to  the 
British  parliament;  and  the  subject  has  been  much  discussed, 
both  in  public  and  private,  and  there  has  been  evidently  a 
great  advance  in  public  opinion,  in  favor  of  the  plan,  which 
needs  only  to  be  fully  and  extensively  understood  to  insure 

its  adoption  by  all  the  enlightened  nations  of  Chris- 
*  130   tendom ;  which  adoption  will  insure  *  the  extension 

of  Christendom  to  the  earth's  remotest  bounds. 
Finally,  to  adopt  the  language  of  St.  Pierre,  at  the  close 
of  his  Dissertation,  "  We  cannot,  indeed,  take  upon  us  to 
say  that  the  sovereigns  of  Europe  [and  the  republics  of 
America]  will  actually  adopt  our  plan,  but  we  can  safely 
say,  that  they  would  adopt  it,  if  they  only  knew  their  own 
true  interests;  for  it  should  be  observed,  that  we  have  not 
supposed  men  to  be  such  as  they  ought  to  be,  good,  gener- 
ous, and  disinterested,  and  public  spirited,  from  motives  of 
humanity;  but,  on  the  contrary,  such  as  they  really  are, 
unjust,  avaricious,  and  more  solicitous  for  their  private  inter- 
est, than  for  the  public  good.  The  only  supposition  which 
we  have  made  is,  that  mankind  have  sense  enough,  in  gen- 
eral, to  know  what  is  useful  to  them,  and  fortitude  enough 


CONGRESS   OF   NATIONS  109 

to  embrace  the  means  of  their  own  happiness.  Should  our 
plan,  nevertheless,  fail  of  being  put  into  execution,  it  will 
not  be  because  it  is  chimerical,  but  because  the  world 
is  absurd;  and  there  is  a  kind  of  absurdity  in  being  wise 
among  fools." 


APPENDIX. 


No.  1. 

Extracts  from  the  "  Speech  of  Don  Manuel  Lorenzo  Vidaurre,  Minister  from  Peru, 
at  the  opening  of  the  American  Congress  of  Panama,  on  the  22d  of  June,  1826." 

This  day,  the  great  American  Congress,  ■which  is  to  be  a  council  in  the  hour  of 
conflict,  the  faithful  interpreter  of  treaties,  a  mediator  in  domestic  contentions, 
and  which  is  charged  with  the  formation  of  our  new  body  of  international  law, 
has  been  organized  and  invested  with  all  the  powers  competent  to  attain  the 
important  and  dignified  end  for  which  it  is  convoked.  All  the  precious  materials 
are  prepared  to  our  hand,  A  world  regards  our  labors  with  the  deepest  attention. 
From  the  most  powerful  monarch,  to  the  humblest  peasant  of  the  Southern  con- 
tinent, no  one  views  our  task  with  indifference.  This  will  be  the  last  opportunity 
for  the  attempt  to  prove  that  man  can  be  happy.  Let  us,  then,  proudly  stand  forth 
the  representatives  of  millions  of  freemen,  and,  inspired  with  a  noble  complacency, 
assimilate  ourselves  to  the  Creator  himself,  when  he  first  gave  laws  to  the  universe. 
Animated  with  celestial  fire,  and  looking  steadily  and  with  reverence  to  the 
Author  of  our  being,  difficulties  the  most  appalling  shrink  into  insignificance. 
The  basis  of  our  confederation  is  firm:  Peace  with  the  whole  world;  respect  for 
European  governments,  even  where  their  political  principles  are  diametrically  op- 
posed to  those  acknowledged  in  America;  free  commerce  with  all  nations,  and  a 
diminution  of  imposts  on  the  trade  of  such  as  have  acknowledged  our  inde- 
pendence; religious  toleration  for  such  as  observe  different  rites  from  those 
•  132  established  by  *  our  constitution.  How  emphatically  are  we  taught  by  the 
blood  which  fanaticism  has  spilt,  from  the  time  of  the  Jews  to  the  com- 
mencement of  the  present  century,  to  be  compassionate  and  tolerant  to  all  who 
travel  to  the  same  point  by  different  paths.  Let  the  stranger,  of  whatever  mode  or 
faith,  come  hither;  he  shall  be  protected  and  respected,  unless  his  morals,  the  true 
standard  of  religion,  be  opposed  to  the  system  given  us  by  the  Messiah.  Let  him  come 
and  instruct  us  in  agriculture  and  the  arts.  Let  the  sad  and  abject  countenance  of 
the  poor  African,  bending  under  the  chains  of  rapacity  and  oppression,  no  longer 
be  seen  in  these  climes;  let  him  be  endowed  with  equal  privileges  with  the  white 
man,  whose  color  he  has  been  taught  to  regard  as  a  badge  of  superiority;  let  him, 

111 


112  APPENDIX 

in  learning  that  he  is  not  distinct  from  other  men,  learn  to  become  a  rational 
being. 

As  respects  ourselves,  two  dangers  are  principally  to  be  avoided.  The  desire 
of  aggrandizement  in  one  state  at  the  expense  of  another,  and  the  possibility 
that  some  ambitious  individual  will  aspire  to  enslave  and  tyrannize  over  his 
fellow-citizens.  Both  of  these  are  as  much  to  be  apprehended,  as  the  weak  efforts 
of  the  Spaniards  are  to  be  contemned.  Human  passions  will  always  operate,  and 
can  never  be  extinguished;  nor,  indeed,  should  we  wish  to  stifle  them.  Man  is 
always  aspiring,  and  never  content  with  present  possessions;  he  has  always  been 
iniquitous,  and  can  we  at  once  inspire  him  with  a  love  of  justice  T  /  trust  we  can. 
He  has  had  a  dire  experience  of  the  ravages  which  uncontrolled  passion  has  caused. 

Sully  and  Henry  IV  projected  a  tribunal  which  should  save  Europe  from  the 
first  of  these  calamities.  In  our  own  day,  Gordon  has  written  a  treatise  on  the 
same  subject.  This  assembly  realizes  the  laudable  views  of  the  king  and  the 
philosopher.    Let  ua  avoid  war,  by  a  common  and  uniform  reference  to  negotiation. 

Above  all,  let  us  form  one  family,  and  forget  the  names  of  our  respective  coun- 
tries in  the  more  general  denomination  of  brothers;  let  us  trade  without  re- 
strictions,— without  prohibition, — let  articles  of  American  growth  be  free  from  duty 
in  all  our  ports — let  us  give  each  other  continual  proofs  of  confidence,  disinterested- 
ness and  true  friendship;  let  us  form  a  body  of  public  law,  which  the  civilized 
world  may  admire;  in  it,  a  wrong  to  one  state  shall  be  regarded  as  an  injury  to 
all,  as  in  a  well-regulated  community,  injustice  to  an  individual  concerns  the  rest 
of  the  republic.  Let  us  solve  the  problem  as  to  the  best  of  governments.  The  form 
which  we  adopt,  securing  to  individuals  all  possible  benefit,  and  to  the  nation 
the  greatest  advantages,  is  that  which,  beyond  doubt,  reaches  the  greatest  felicity 
of  which  human  nature  is  susceptible,  the  highest  perfection  of  human  institu- 
tions. 
•  133  •  And  when  our  labors  are  concluded,  let  us  return  to  our  homes,  and, 
surrounded  by  our  children  and  grandchildren,  let  us  select  the  youngest  of 
those  beloved  objects,  and  uplifting  it,  a  fit  offering  to  the  Supreme  Being,  teach  it 
in  tender  accents  to  give  thanks  for  the  inestimable  benefits  we  have  received.  Let 
the  Greek  celebrate  his  exploits  in  leaving  Troy  in  ashes;  the  representative  of  the 
American  Republics  will  boast  of  having  promulgated  laws,  which  secure  peace 
abroad  as  well  as  the  internal  tranquillity  of  the  states  that  now  confederate. 


No.  2. 

First  Petition  to  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts. 

The  following  Petition  was  presented  to  the  Senate  of  Massachusetts,  by  the 
Hon.  Sidney  Willard,  February  6,  1835: 

To  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Massa- 
chusetts, in  General  Court  convened,  on  the  first  Wednesday  of  January,  A.  D., 
1830. 


APPENDIX  113 

The  Petition  of  the  aubscribers  humbly  shows:  that,  a  proposition  having  been 
laid  before  a  very  large  and  respectable  portion  of  the  community,  in  relation 
to  a  reference  by  the  Peace  Societies  to  the  attention  of  Congress  on  the  subject 
01  an  Abolition  of  War,  by  devising  suitable  means  for  the  references  of  all 
international  disputes  to  a  Court  of  Nations,  to  be  established  either  permanently 
or  otherwise,  in  such  form  and  manner  as  the  best  counsel  and  wisdom  of  the 
several  nations  may  hereafter  deem  proper  to  adopt;  which  proposition,  it 
appears,  had  received  the  countenance,  and  the  signatures  in  its  favor,  of  several 
thousand  individuals,  in  this  and  other  States,  among  whom  are  many  of  our 
fellow-citizens  of  eminent  rank,  talent,  and  character,  those  also  of  all  classes 
and  professions  in  the  community,  of  all  political  parties,  and  of  every  religious 
denomination:  the  subscribers,  deeply  impressed  with  a  consideration  of  the 
burdensome  expense,  the  moral  corruption,  the  manifold  crimes,  the  private  suf- 
fering, and  the  public  calamities  incurred  by  war ;  considering  it  inconsistent  with 
the  spirit  of  Christianity,  injurious  to  the  physical,  moral,  social,  and  religious 
condition  of  the  community,  productive  of  immense  evils,  and  subversive,  in  many 
respects,  of  the  best  interests  of  mankind;  lamenting  the  insensibility  which 
habit  and  education  have  induced  with  respect  to  this  custom;   believing  the 

decision  of  international  disputes  on  principles  of  equity,  without  an  ap- 
•  134   peal  to  arms,  to  be  *  dictated  by  enlightened  reason,  demanded  by  Christian 

duty,  commended  by  every  consideration  of  self-interest,  and,  therefore, 
loudly  called  for  by  the  voice  of  wisdom;  and  seeing  the  steps  now  taking  by 
eminent  philanthropists,  statesmen,  and  others,  in  Great  Britain,  and  on  the 
continent  of  Europe,  to  cooperate  with  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  in  rela- 
tion to  such  measures  as  may  be  deemed  expedient  and  practicable,  to  procure 
its  abolition;  wishing  to  awaken,  yet  more  widely  and  effectually,  the  attention 
of  the  public  to  its  baneful  influence  on  the  agricultural,  the  commercial,  and  the 
manufacturing  interests,  and  on  the  progress  of  civilization,  arts,  sciences,  and 
religion;  desirous  of  investigating  the  means  best  adapted  for  the  promotion  of 
permanent  and  universal  peace,  and  of  establishing  the  conviction  that  the 
highest  dignity  of  a  people  results  from  the  exercise  of  impartial  justice  towards 
all  nations,  and  that  the  highest  happiness  of  a  community  can  be  attained 
only  by  cherishing  the  spirit  and  virtues  of  peace;  in  a  word,  considering  it  of 
the  utmost  importance  to  the  best  interests  of  humanity,  civilization,  and 
improvement,  that  some  mode  of  just  arbitration  should  be  established  for  the 
amicable  and  final  adjustment  of  all  international  disputes,  instead  of  an 
appeal  to  arms,  request  the  attention  of  your  honorable  body  to  this,  as  we 
deem,  highly  important  subject,  in  order  that  such  steps  may  be  taken  in  rela- 
tion thereto,  as  may  appear  best  adapted  to  promote  the  end  in  view. 

Thomas  Thompson,  Jb., 
Wm.  Lado,  Oen.  Agent  of  A.  P.  8. 


114,  APPENDIX 


No.  8. 

Report  on  the  foregoing  Petition. 

CotmnontseoUb  of  iVaMocbiufett*. 

The  CJommittee  of  the  Senate,  to  whom  was  referred  the  Petition  of  Thomas 
Thompson,  Jr.,  and  Wm.  Ladd,  General  Agent  of  the  American  Peace  Society, 

BEPOBT: 

That  they  have  considered  said  petition,  which  sets  forth  that  several  thousand 
persons  in  this  Commonwealth  and  other  States,  have  signed  a  proposition  calling 
on  the  peace  societies,  at  a  suitable  time,  to  present  petitions  to  Congress,  praying 
that  measures  may  be  taken,  in  connection  with  other  governments,  to  refer  all 
international  disputes  to  a  Court  of  Nations,  with  a  view  to  prevent  a 
•  135  resort  to  war,  for  the  *  obtaining  of  alleged  rights,  or  the  reparation  of 
injuries.  The  petitioners  enumerate  several  of  the  prominent  evils  of 
war,  evils  which  can  hardly  be  exaggerated,  and  request  the  attention  of  the 
General  Court  to  the  subject,  "  in  order  that  such  steps  may  be  taken  in  rela- 
tion thereto  as  may  appear  best  adapted  to  promote  the  end  in  view." 

The  Committee,  during  the  interval  which  has  elapsed  since  the  petition  was 
referred  to  them,  have  taken  a  deep  interest  in  the  subject  of  it;  but  they 
have  felt  embarrassed  by  that  diffidence  which  lays  its  restraints  upon  all  men 
who  are  not  marked  out  by  their  constitutional  temperament  for  reformers,  and 
who  are  placed  in  such  a  novel  situation,  when, — from  the  humble  beginnings  of 
small  associations,  scattered  in  different  territories  of  the  civilized  parts  of 
the  earth,  toiling  and  praying  for  the  peace  of  nations, — they  have  looked  for- 
\*ard  to  the  glorious  consummation  devoutly  wished,  and  confidently  expected, 
at  some  period  of  the  world's  eventful  history. 

The  Committee  are  fully  persuaded  that  pacific  principles  are  gaining  ground. 
Mankind  are  more  and  more  convinced,  that  wars  are  generally  waged,  not  only 
without  necessity,  but  even  in  defiance  of  wisdom  and  humanity.  They  are  more 
and  more  inclined  to  believe  that  something  foimded  in  the  pride,  or  ambition,  or 
deep-laid  policy  of  rulers,  is  commonly  the  great  stake,  rather  than  the  interests 
of  their  subjects.  And  finding  that  the  objects  held  out  as  pretexts  for  hos- 
tilities are  rarely,  if  ever,  accomplished,  or,  if  gained,  at  a  sacrifice  with  which 
the  amount  of  the  benefit  sinks  to  nothing  in  comparison;  just  views  of  the 
interests  of  man  are  leading  the  more  intelligent  to  count  the  cost  of  these 
great  games  of  princes  and  statesmen,  which  are  played  at  infinite  expense, — 
expense  not  only  of  individual  and  national  wealth,  but  of  domestic  happiness 
and  of  public  morals, — and  above  all,  expense  of  human  life,  the  value  of  which 
is  not  a  subject  for  computation. 

It  is  thought  by  the  Committee,  that  the  appointment  of  some  umpire,  either 
temporary  or  permanent,  by  which  disputes  between  nations  may  be  decided,  is 
by  no  means  a  visionary  project.    Such  an  umpire  can  certainly  be  designated, 


APPENDIX  115 

whenever  public  opinion,  in  civilized  nations,  shall  be  sufficiently  enlightened  to 
sanction  it.  It  is  already  embraced  in  the  views  of  our  extending  peace  societies, 
in  the  discussions  and  lectures  of  our  lyceums,  in  the  debates  of  our  academic 
halls;  and  it  is  believed  that  the  Legislature  of  this  Commonwealth  would  not  go 
far  in  advance  of  public  opinion,  by  some  declarative  act  favorable  to  this 
pacific  mode  of  terminating  the  controversies  of  nations.  Such  a  declaration 
would  at  least  be  harmless;  and  no  man  of  high  moral  feeling  or  moral  courage 
can  hesitate  how  to  act,  when  the  alternative  presented  is,  on  the  one 
•  136  hand,  the  possibility  of  accomplishing  an  *  incalculable  public  good,  and 
on  the  other,  nothing  but  the  danger  of  encountering  the  chilling  incredulity 
or  heartless  raillery  of  those  who  do  not  know  how  to  appreciate  his  motives. 

If  we  may  reason  from  the  less  to  the  greater,  from  plans  well  known,  and 
already  tried  with  success,  to  those  which  have  not  been  attempted  on  a  more 
comprehensive  system,  and  which  may  prove  more  complex  in  their  operations, 
such  an  umpire  as  has  been  suggested  is  not  impracticable.  It  is  no  novelty  in 
a  limited  sphere.  It  is  as  old  as  the  Amphictyonic  Council,  which  came,  in  its 
progress,  to  embrace  deputies  from  thirty-one  cities  or  states;  a  council  whose 
decisions  upon  the  disputes  between  the  cities  of  Greece  were  for  a  time  sacredly 
and  inviolably  regarded.  And,  in  modern  times,  the  Swiss  cantons,  with  their 
variety  of  nations  and  languages,  of  manners,  of  religion,  especially  of  the 
two  great  antagonist  divisions.  Catholic  and  Protestant,  and  of  governments,  too, 
fiom  unmixed  democracy  to  stern  aristocracy,  have,  by  their  Diet,  or  Court  of 
Ambassadors,  preserved  among  the  members  of  the  confederacy  that  uniform 
peace  and  resistance  to  foreign  aggression,  for  which  the  union  of  those  two  and 
twenty  independent  states  was  formed. 

If  a  public  attempt  is  ever  to  be  made  to  bring  war  into  discredit,  and  to 
devise  some  amicable  mode  of  settling  disputes  between  nations,  it  may  be  well 
now  for  some  public  body  to  feel  the  way.  And  no  where  can  this  beginning  be 
more  suitable  than  in  Massachusetts,  It  is  in  this  Commonwealth,  if  we  except 
the  Friends  or  Quakers,  that  the  earliest  and  most  unintermitted  eflForts  have 
been  made  to  diffuse  the  principles  of  universal  peace.  The  Massachusetts 
Peace  Society  is  looking  to  us  for  encouragement.  The  trustees,  in  their  recent 
report,  after  alluding  to  the  motion  made  last  year  in  the  Legislature,  recom- 
mending a  Court  of  Nations  for  the  securing  permanent  peace,  add,  "  Should 
the  measure  be  renewed  at  the  present  session,  and  meet  with  success,  we 
shall  hail  it  as  a  most  felicitous  and  honorable  event."  It  is  a  small  boon  that 
they  ask  at  our  hands.  They  assume  the  labor;  they  entreat  from  us,  who  can- 
not but  have  the  same  noble  purpose  at  heart,  to  speak  an  approving  word. 
They  will  be  satisfied  with  a  simple  declaration,  such  as  the  Committee  are 
about  to  propose;  such,  as  it  is  presumed,  will  not  be  withheld. 

If  we  are  asked  what  effects  are  to  flow  from  this  measure,  we  answer. 
It  will  show  the  people  of  this  Commonwealth,  that  when  solicited  to  express  an 
opinion  upon  a  great  national  subject  of  vital  concern,  a  subject  which  can 
excite  no  conflict  of  party  passions,  we  do  not  turn  a  deaf  ear  to  the  call; 
that  we  do  not  maintain  a  heartless  silence,  but  return  a  kind  and  generous 


116  APPENDIX 

*  137   response  to  the  voice  of  those  *   noble  philanthropists  who  would  save 
mankind  from  evils,  into  which  those  in  times  gone  by  have  rushed  head- 
long, and  which  they  have  been  obliged  to  rue  when  it  was  too  late  to  escape 
them. 

We  may  hope  that  an  example  so  inoffensive,  so  reasonable,  so  well  intended, 
aiming  at  the  highest  interests  of  humanity,  "  Peace  on  earth  and  good-will 
to  men,"  will  not  be  overlooked;  that  it  will  be  followed  by  other  States,  and 
when,  in  this  way,  a  wider  influence  shall  be  produced  upon  public  opinion,  may 
it  not  be  hoped  that  the  object  will  be  recommended  with  such  power  to  the 
general  government,  as  to  lead  to  salutary  action,  resulting  through  its  negotia- 
tions with  other  powers,  in  more  benevolent  and  well-defined  principles  of 
international  law,  tending  to  cut  off  many  of  the  occasions  of  national  conflicts, 
and,  if  not  to  put  a  final  period  to  wars,  at  least  to  disarm  them  of  some  of 
their  horrors  ?  With  this  brief  and  very  imperfect  view  of  the  subject,  the  Com- 
mittee unanimously  recommend  the  following  resolutions  for  the  adoption  of 
the  Legislature. 

Sidney  Wiixabd,       "j 

Daniel   Messingeb,  L  Committee. 

Ephsaik  Hastings,   \ 

V 

Commontotaltt  of  flliatiad)vatttsl. 
In  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thoitaand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-five. 

Reaolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  Legislature,  some  mode  should  be  estab- 
lished for  the  amicable  and  final  adjustment  of  all  international  disputes,  instead 
of  resort  to  war. 

Resolved,  That  the  Governor  of  this  Commonwealth  be  requested  to  com- 
municate a  copy  of  the  above  report  and  of  the  resolutions  annexed,  to  the 
Executive  of  each  of  the  States,  to  be  laid  before  the  Legislatura  thereof,  inviting 
a  cooperation  for  the  advancement  of  the  object  in  view. 


No.  4. 

To  the  Honorable  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Commonwealth  of 
Massachusetts  in  General  Court  convened  on  the  first  Wednesday  of  January, 
A.  D.,  1837. 

The  memorial  of  the  imdersigned  humbly  shows, — That  a  proposition  having 

been  by  him,  sometime  since,  suggested  in  favor  of  calling  the  attention  of 

•  138   Congress  or  inviting  that  of  the  head  of  the  Executive  •  Government  of  the 

Union,  in  concert  with  such  other  governments  as  may  see  fit  to  imite  in 

counsel  with  the  United  States,  for  the  establishment  of  a  Congress  or  Court 


APPENDIX  117 

of  Nations,  either  permanent  or  otherwise,  in  such  form  and  manner  as  the 
best  coimsel  and  wisdom  of  the  several  nations  may  deem  proper  to  adopt,  or 
for  considering  such  measures  as  may  be  deemed  most  suitable  for  devising, 
if  possible,  and  introducing  as  far  as  may  be  practicable,  some  other  system  of 
arbitration  for  the  settlement  of  international  disputes,  which  shall  be  more 
congenial  with  the  intellectual,  moral,  and  religious,  as  well  as  the  physical 
advancement  of  the  age,  than  an  appeal  to  arms,  a  custom  now  beginning  to 
be  very  generally  considered  by  the  enlightened  of  all  civilized,  and  more  espe- 
cially all  Christian  communities,  as  a  relic  of  barbarism,  and  as  always  uncertain 
and  wholly  inadequate  to  the  speedy,  just,  and  full  redress  of  grievances;  which 
proposition  has  received  the  countenance  and  the  signatures,  in  its  favor,  of  a 
great  number  of  individuals  eminent  in  rank,  talent,  and  character,  both  in 
this  and  other  States,  and  also  those  of  all  classes  and  professions,  of  different 
political  parties,  and  of  every  religious  denomination:  believing  a  state  of 
society  has  developed  itself  in  the  United  States,  and  also  in  some  of  the  more 
enlightened  and  republican  nations  of  Europe,  of  the  existence  of  which  the 
governments  of  the  respective  countries  have  not,  by  any  acts  in  conformity 
thereto,  appeared  to  be  aware,  and  for  which  no  adequate  preparation,  nor  any 
appropriate  change  in  the  existing  state  of  things  has  yet  been  made;  a  state 
of  society  by  which,  it  appears  to  your  memorialist,  the  present  age  is  strongly 
marked,  and  whose  features  distinguish  it  most  clearly  and  prominently  from 
all  preceding  times;  a  state  of  society  in  which  national  wealth  is  no  longer 
obtained  by  conquest,  the  precarious  acquisition  of  some  bold,  restless  and  am- 
bitious military  chieftain,  but  by  the  private,  individual  exertion  of  the  intelli- 
gence, industry  and  activity  of  the  citizens  at  large,  in  the  pursuit  of  their 
several  peaceful  professions  and  occupations;  a  state  of  society  which,  differing 
80  widely  and  so  totally  in  all  its  ways  and  all  its  wants  from  that  preceding 
it,  cannot  be  adequately  fostered,  provided  for  and  protected  by  those  institutions 
and  laws  which  were  instituted  and  enacted  for  the  regulation,  government,  and 
well-being  of  communities,  so  widely  differing  in  circumstances  and  resources, 
where  might  constitutes  the  only  effective  right,  where  stealth  was  countenanced 
by  law,  when  the  sword  occupied  the  place  of  the  batoon,  and  the  strong  arm  was 
the  only  avenger:  seeing  in  the  present  state  of  things  a  change  so  marked,  and 
indeed  so  radical  and  apparently  so  permanent  a  revolution,  requiring  at  least 

some  modification  of  those  rules  and  regulations  which  were  enacted  with 
*  139   not  the  *  most  remote  anticipation  of  the  now  existing  actual  condition  of 

a  very  large  and  continually  increasing  portion  of  society,  a  community 
embracing  the  farmer,  the  manufacturer,  the  merchant,  the  mechanic,  the 
trader,  not  to  name  more  particularly  the  various  liberal  professions  and  many 
other  minor  classes  of  citizens,  all  peacefully,  privately,  actively,  and  use- 
fully engaged  in  those  various  individual  employments  which  tend  so  directly 
and  so  effectually  to  promote,  establish  and  extend  that  highly  cultivated  and 
refined  state  of  civilization,  so  powerfully  promotive  of  the  useful  arts  and  sci- 
ences and  all  the  higher  interests  of  man,  and  whose  development  can  only  be 
effectually  attained  where  man  is  in  the  enjoyment  of  perfect  freedom,  equal 


118  APPENDIX 

rights,  and  peace:  considering  the  many  deep-rooted,  and  wide-spread  evils  of 
war,  its  invariably  adverse  bearing  on  the  best  interests  of  mankind,  undermining 
the  physical,  moral,  social  and  religious  condition  of  the  community,  imposing 
the  most  burdensome  expense,  introducing  the  darkest  crimes,  extending  the 
deepest  corruption,  creating  the  keenest  individual  suffering,  social  miseries, 
and  public  calamities:  perceiving  the  growing  disinclination  to  all  acts  of  brutal 
violence,  the  enlightened  opposition  already  made  by  associated  individuals,  in- 
corporated public  bodies,  and  various  legislative  and  executive  authorities,  not 
only  in  the  United  States  but  also  in  many  parts  of  Europe,  to  the  outbreaking 
of  popular  violence,  the  sanguinary  indulgence  of  private  passion,  and  even 
the  inexpedient  secret  arming  of  individuals  for  the  real  or  declared  purpose  of 
Belf-defence,  and  remarking,  also,  the  highly  honorable  attitude  assumed  by  the 
public  press  in  various  parts  of  this  and  other  countries  in  favor  of  peace :  regret- 
ting, and  desirous,  if  possible,  to  remove,  the  widely  prevailing  insensibility  to 
the  futility,  inexpediency,  and  folly  of  war,  an  insensibility  induced  only  by 
the  combined  effect  of  erroneous  principles  of  instruction,  long  prevalent  custom 
and  utter  want  of  due  reflection:  believing  the  introduction  of  some  system  for 
the  equitable  settlement  of  international  disputes,  without  an  appeal  to  arms, 
when  once  sanctioned  by  the  popular  favor,  to  be  perfectly  practicable,  as  much 
80  as  any  at  present  in  existence,  for  the  legal  decision  of  disputes  between  indi- 
viduals, incorporated  bodies,  towns,  districts  and  states;  and,  being  thus  prac- 
ticable, to  be  demanded  by  the  voice  of  common  humanity,  by  the  dictates  of 
enlightened  reason,  by  the  obligations  of  Christian  duty,  by  the  prompting  of 
self-interest  and  by  considerations  of  public  good:  being  informed  of  the  inclina- 
tion and  exertions  of  many  distinguished  philanthropists,  scholars,  statesmen 
and  others  in  Great  Britain  and  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  to  cooperate  with 

the  friends  of  peace  in  the  United  States  for  the  adoption  of  such  measures 
•  140   as  may  appear  to  be  most  expedient  and  *  practicable  for  the  introduction 

of  some  system  of  arbitration  instead  of  an  appeal  to  arms:  desirous  of 
calling  the  attention  of  the  public,  and  of  our  several  state  and  general  govern- 
ments, more  immediately  and  effectually  to  this  subject,  in  order,  from  a  con- 
sideration of  the  baneful  influence  of  war  on  the  agricultural,  commercial,  manu- 
facturing and  various  mechanic  interests,  on  the  progress  of  civilization,  arts, 
sciences  and  religion,  the  extensive  acquisition  of  national  wealth,  and  the  secure 
enjoyment  of  the  fruits  of  private  industry,  to  extend  and  strengthen  a  conviction, 
that  the  highest  dignity  of  a  people  results  from  the  exercise  of  impartial  justice 
towards  all  nations;  and  the  highest  happiness  of  a  community  can  be  attained 
only  by  cherishing  the  spirit  and  virtues  of  peace:  thus  proving  it  to  be  of  the 
utmost  importance  to  the  best  interests  of  civilization,  freedom,  human  improve- 
ment, and  the  refinements  of  social  life,  to  establish  some  mode  of  just  arbitra- 
tion, for  the  amicable  and  flnal  adjustment  of  all  international  disputes,  instead 
of  an  appeal  to  arms:  Your  memorialist  requests  the  attention  of  your  honorable 
body  to  this,  as  he  deems  it,  and  as  he  has  reason  to  believe,  the  great  body  of 
the  people,  not  only  of  this  State  and  the  other  members  of  our  confederacy,  but 
those  of  other  countries,  also,  think  it  to  be,  highly  important  subject,  in  order 


APPENDIX  lift 

that  such  steps  may  be  taken  in  relation  thereto  as  may  appear  to  be  best  adapted 
to  promote  the  end  in  view. 

Thomab  Thompson,  Jb. 
House  of  Representatives,  Feb.  18,  1837. — Referred  to  the  special  committee 
on  the  subject  thereof  sent  up  for  concurrence. 

L.  S.  Gushing,  Clerk. 
Senate,  Feb.  20,  1837.— Concurred. 

Charles  Calhoun,  Clerk. 


No.  5. 

Petition  of  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Massachusetts  Peace  Societi/. 

To  the  Honorable  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Commonwealth 
of  Massachusetts  in  General  Court  assembled: — The  memorial  of  the  undersigned, 
members  of  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Massachusetts  Peace  Society,  respect- 
fully shows: 

That  the  Society  which  we  represent  has  existed  for  upwards  of  twenty 
*  141  years,  and  has  comprised  a  considerable  number  of  the  citizens  *  of  this 
Commonwealth,  some  of  whom  have  been  distinguished  for  elevated  stations 
in  the  community,  for  talent,  benevolence  and  respectability  of  character,  who 
have  associated  themselves  together  with  the  design  of  abolishing,  by  moral  means, 
one  of  the  greatest  evils  of  the  human  race — the  practice  of  national  war.  They 
have  been  encouraged  in  the  promotion  of  this  design,  by  the  full  belief  that 
war  does  not  occur  from  any  natural,  or  irresistible  necessity,  but  entirely  from 
the  excited  passions,  mistaken  interests,  and  deep  delusions  of  nations,  and  may 
therefore  be  prevented  by  moral  influence  and  exposition  judiciously  applied  so 
as  to  enlighten  the  reason  and  consciences  of  men.  In  these  sentiments,  and 
corresponding  conduct,  they  have  received  the  full  concurrence  of  other  similar 
institutions  in  the  United  States  and  foreign  countries. 

Among  the  various  measures  which  have  been  proposed  for  checking  the  spirit 
and  practice  of  war,  a  prominent  place  has  been  given  to  the  idea  of  an  inter- 
national Congress  or  Court,  composed  of  delegates  from  all  the  civilized  foreign 
powers,  which  should  consider  and  determine  the  disputed  questions  arising 
between  them,  in  cases  which  have  hitherto  been  supposed  to  require  an  appeal 
to  arms,  and  the  award  of  which  should  be  considered  as  binding,  in  honor,  on 
the  disputing  parties.  This  project  has  occupied  the  attention  of  our  Society 
for  a  long  time,  and  a  proposition,  comprising  it,  has  been  extensively  presented 
to  individuals  of  all  ranks  and  classes  in  this  State,  by  whom  it  has  been  almost 
unanimously  and  readily  accepted.  It  was  our  intention  to  have  submitted  this 
proposition,  and  our  views  upon  it,  to  the  government  of  the  United  States,  but 
having  recently  learned,  that  your  honorable  bodies  have  referred  this  subject 
to  a  joint  committee,  we  have  thought  that  an  expression  of  thp  associated  friends 
of  peace  was  peculiarly  proper,  while  it  was  thus  under  consideration.  A  meet- 
ing of  the  Massachusetts  Peace  Society  has  accordingly  been  held,  and  we,  their 


120  APPENDIX 

Executive  Committee,  have  been  directed,  in  their  name,  and  on  their  behalf,  to 
offer  to  you  their  views  and  desires  on  this  subject. 

In  the  execution  of  this  trust,  your  memorialists  deem  it  unnecessary  to  lay 
before  you  any  demonstration  of  the  immorality  and  the  misery  of  war,  to  which 
all  history  bears  ample  testimony,  and  of  which  you  doubtless  are  fully  aware, 
and  we  feel  confident  we  shall  address  none,  who  do  not  sincerely  desire  ita 
extinction.  It  is  only  incumbent  on  us,  to  present  to  you  the  views  of  our  Society 
on  the  practicability  and  efficacy  of  the  measure  now  proposed  for  that  purpose. 
We  are  enjoined  to  request  of  your  honorable  houses,  that  if  it  seems 
meet  to  you,  some  expression  of  opinion  may  be  made  by  you,  which  may 
•  142  be  •  communicated  to  the  President  of  the  United  States  conveying  the 
desire  that  he  would  open  a  negotiation  with  other  foreign  powers,  for  the 
purpose  of  establishing,  by  their  general  consent,  some  such  impartial  tribunal, 
for  the  adjustment  of  international  differences,  as  we  have  suggested. 

On  the  practicability  of  such  an  arrangement,  your  memorialists  would  remark, 
that  it  has  been  fully  discussed  in  the  assemblies  and  publications  of  the  friends 
of  peace,  and  has  been  very  generally  determined  in  the  affirmative,  by  all  who 
have  treated  it,  including  many  minds  by  no  means  disposed  to  be  sanguine  or 
visionary.  To  this  we  may  add,  that  rational  governments  have  also  indicated 
their  approbation  of  the  principle  of  this  course,  by  submission  of  disputes  to 
other  governments  as  impartial  arbiters — a  measure  to  which  our  own  govern- 
ment has  more  than  once  resorted. 

It  may  be  objected  to  the  object  of  our  solicitation,  that  it  would  not  be 
proper  for  the  legislature  of  this  or  any  other  State  to  make  any  recommenda- 
tion on  a  subject  of  foreign  polity,  which  is  considered  as  belonging  exclusively 
to  the  government  of  the  United  States.  On  this  point,  your  own  wisdom  will 
decide,  and  it  does  not  become  us  to  offer  any  opinion;  we  may,  however,  be 
pardoned  for  the  remark,  that  we  cannot  think  such  an  application,  coming  in 
a  spirit  of  philanthropy  from  so  respected  and  influential  a  member  of  the  Union, 
would  be  regarded  as  improper  interference  with  the  prerogatives  of  the  general 
government;  nor  should  we  consider  the  negotiation  which  it  proposes  hopeless  of 
a  favorable  result,  in  the  present  political  state  of  the  world,  proceeding  from 
a  nation  whose  form  of  government  and  remoteness  from  the  collisions  of  other 
great  powers  would  preclude  all  suspicion  of  sinister  motives. 

To  this — our  beloved  country — ^we  earnestly  desire  the  honor  of  offering  to 
the  world  this  truly  rational  policy,  which  a  more  enlightened  posterity  will 
elevate  far  above  the  renown  of  violent  revolutions  and  extensive  conquests,  and 
to  our  own  Commonwealth,  to  which  has  been  awarded  the  merited  reputation 
of  advance  in  many  works  of  Christian  benevolence,  we  would  hope  to  add  the 
imperishable  glory  of  first  pointing  out  the  merciful  refuge  of  peace. 

Respectfully  submitted  by  direction  of  the  Massachusetts  Peace  Society, 
Chables  Lowell,  Thos,  Vose, 

ROBEBT  WaTEBSTON,  J.   P.   BlANCHASD, 

Babon  Stow,  Wm.  Bbioham, 

J.  V.  HuiES,  Bbadfobo  Sumreb. 


APPENDIX  121 


No.  6. 

*  143  *  Report  on  the  foregoing  Petitions. 

CommontneaUti  of  0lasisia^\iitttf(. 

In  Senate,  April  4,  1837. 

The  Joint  Special  Committee,  to  whom  waa  referred  an  Order  of  the  15th 
ultimo,  for  the  consideration  of  the  expediency  of  memorializing  Ck»ngre88, 
or  the  Executive  of  the  United  States,  on  the  subject  of  opening  a  negotiation 
■with  such  other  governments  as  may  be  deemed  most  judicious,  with  a  view 
cf  establishing  a  Congress  or  Court  of  Nations,  to  be  either  permanent  or  other- 
wise, for  considering  such  measures  as  may  be  deemed  most  suitable  for  devising 
and  introducing  some  other  system,  more  congenial  with  the  moral  and  religious, 
as  well  as  physical  advancement  of  the  age,  than  an  appeal  to  arms,  for  a 
redress  of  national  grievances;  and  to  whom,  also,  was  referred  the  Memorials 
cf  Thomas  Thompson,  Jr.  and  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Massachusetts  Peace 
Society,  in  reference  to  this  subject,  bepobt: 

That  they  have  had  the  subject  under  consideration;  and,  after  giving  it 
that  attention  its  merits  appear  to  deserve,  have  become  deeply  impressed  with 
H  full  conviction  of  the  highly  beneficial  results  which  may  be  attained  by  the 
prosecution  of  such  measures  as  are  now  in  contemplation;  and  freely  express 
their  impression,  that  the  proposition,  set  forth  in  the  order  and  memorials 
referred  to  the  Committee,  is  neither  visionary  in  theory,  unimportant  in  char- 
acter, nor  unattainable  in  result;  but,  on  the  contrary,  appears  to  this  Committee 
to  be  well  deserving  the  countenance  and  cordial  support  of  every  friend  to  the 
stability  of  the  social  compact,  the  increase  of  national  wealth,  the  advancement 
of  civilization,  the  promotion  of  the  arts  and  sciences,  the  extension  of  free- 
dom, the  security  of  constitutional  government,  the  improvement  of  public 
morals,  the  extension  of  the  Christian  faith,  and  thus  to  the  general  welfare  of 
mankind. 

In  arriving  at  this  result,  your  Committee  have  gone  over  a  wide  field  of  obser- 
vation and  inquiry. 

The  proposition  now  under  consideration,  however  novel  it  may  appear  to  many, 
has  been,  for  six  years  past,  a  subject  of  interest,  attention  and  discussion  in 
this  community. 

It  appears,  from  well  authenticated  facts,  and  many  printed  and  written  docu- 
ments, presented  by  the  memorialists  to  the  Committee,  that  there  has 

*  144   been  a  very  wide  and  full  expression  of  sentiment  from  *  all  classes  of  the 

community,  without  distinction  of  party,  sect  or  profession,  in  favor  of  the 
measures  now  in  contemplation  in  reference  to  a  Congress  or  Court  of  Nations, 
for  the  amicable  adjustment  of  international  disputes.  Among  those  who  have 
given  their  signatures  in  favor  of  the  proposition,  your  Committee  find  the 
names  of  a  great  number  of  individuals  of  the  highest  rank  in  regard  to  social. 


122  APPENDIX 

intellectual,  moral,  political,  and  religious  attainment.  Among  them  are  some 
of  those  who  have  filled  the  highest  executive  and  judicial  offices  of  this  Com- 
monwealth and  of  other  States,  many  of  the  most  eminent  of  our  counsellors 
and  statesmen;  and  the  clergy,  the  most  intelligent  merchants,  manufacturers, 
mechanics,  and  farmers,  also  masters  of  vessels  appear  to  have  come  forward  in 
bodies  to  enrol  their  names  in  favor  of  this  cause.  In  our  colleges,  academies,  and 
public  and  private  schools,  its  reception  appears  to  have  been  equally  favorable; 
presidents,  professors,  tutors,  instructers,  and  the  students  of  the  higher  classes 
uniting  in  its  support;  in  furtherance  of  which,  it  appears,  peace  societies  have 
recently  been  formed  by  the  associated  instructers  and  students  at  many  of  our 
colleges  and  literary  institutions;  and  orations  and  other  exercises  on  this  topic 
have  been  assigned  at  commencement  and  on  other  occasions;  and,  in  some  cases, 
prizes  are  statedly  assigned  and  medals  are  awarded  for  the  best  dissertations 
and  poems  on  the  subject  of  peace,  and  of  arbitration  as  a  substitute  for  an 
appeal  to  arms.  Very  many  and  strongly  expressed  resolves  have  been  passed 
with  perfect  unanimity  in  a  number  of  ecclesiastical  and  lay  conventions,  associa- 
tions, conferences,  and  other  meetings.  Indeed,  so  very  favorably  has  this  cause 
been  received  by  the  community  at  large,  it  appears  that  there  are  about  a 
thousand  clcrgjTnen  in  the  New  England,  Middle,  Western  and  Southern  States, 
who  have  given  their  names  pledging  themselves  to  preach  at  least  one  sermon 
every  year  on  this  subject;  and  it  is  introduced  in  lyceum  lectures  and  dis- 
cussions, and  made  an  object  of  attention  in  Bible  classes,  and  in  the  course  of 
instruction  in  Sabbath  schools.  Many  of  the  most  popular  and  talented  authors 
have  proffered  their  services  in  the  promotion  of  this  cause;  and  Sabbath  school 
books,  and  books  for  other  schools  and  academies,  and  some  works  of  a  still 
higher  class,  having  reference  to  its  promotion,  have  been  published,  as  is  shown 
by  the  memorialists,  not  only  in  several  of  the  New  England  States,  but  also  at 
the  South,  in  London,  Switzerland,  and  elsewhere.  It  appears,  further,  from 
facts  and  documents  presented  to  your  Committee  by  the  memorialists,  an  exten- 
sive correspondence  on  this  subject  has  been  carried  on,  for  some  time  past,  be- 
tween societies  and  individuals  in  various  parts  of  the  United  States,  Great 
•  145  Britain,  France,  Switzerland,  *  Prussia,  Holland,  some  of  the  German 
States,  and  elsewhere;  meetings  have  been  held,  societies  formed,  addresses 
made,  and  resolves  adopted;  from  which  there  appears  to  be  a  very  wide  spread 
and  prevailing  sentiment  in  favor  of  a  general  cooperation  for  the  attainment  of 
the  great  and  all-important  design  of  substituting  arbitration  instead  of  arms, 
as  a  last  resort,  for  the  decision  of  international  disputes.  Several  of  the 
courts  of  Europe  have  been  addressed  on  the  subject  of  peace  by  the  Count  de 
Sellon. 

Your  Committee  have  deemed  it  proper,  and,  indeed,  in  a  degree,  essential,  to 
the  interests  of  this  cause,  to  give  the  foregoing  very  brief  outline  of  the  facts 
laid  before  them,  in  regard  to  the  state  of  feeling  apparently  prevailing  in  the 
community,  both  in  this  country  and  abroad,  in  favor  of  some  action,  on  the  part 
of  government,  for  the  promotion  of  the  object  now  presented  to  view.  It  cannot 
be  denied,  the  view  opens  a  bright  field  of  intelligence  and  high  moral  feeling, 


APPENDIX  128 

unfolding  a  wide  expanse  of  heart-cheering  philanthropy;  a  field  appearing  already 
ripe  for  the  harvest,  and  open  for  him  who  will,  to  enter  in,  and  be  the  first  to  win 
its  laurels,  to  pluck  its  rich  and  wholesome  fruit,  and  gather  to  himself  a  rich 
store  of  present  fame,  future  and  fair  renown,  and  a  glory  which  shall  endure, 
when  the  blood-stained  laurels  of  the  offensive  warrior  shall  have  become  faded 
and  withered,  an  object  of  the  abhorrence  rather  than  the  veneration  of  man- 
kind. 

May  not  the  citizens  of  this  State,  and  of  these  United  States,  be  justly 
indulged  in  the  laudable  desire  of  seeing  one  of  their  own  chief  magistrates 
the  first  to  set  foot  on  this  thrice  consecrated  ground  ?  May  they  not  pardonably 
indulge  the  flattering  hope  to  see  the  name  of  a  president  of  this  republic  engraved 
on  that  ever-enduring  and  consecrated  list,  where  stand,  and  will  for  ever  remain, 
so  long  as  the  memory  of  man  shall  endure,  the  names  of  Numa  Pompilius,  Francis 
the  first,  of  France,  Charles  the  fifth,  of  the  Low  Countries,  Caesar  Maximilian 
the  emperor,  Henry  the  eighth,  of  England,  W.  A.  Ciervier,  John  Sylvagius,  chan- 
cellor of  Burgundy,  Erasmus,  Fenelon,  Henry  the  fourth,  of  France,  and  Charles 
Irene  Castel  de  St.  Pierre.  If  the  remembrance  of  these  names  is  cherished  by 
the  enlightened  of  the  present  day,  with  a  feeling  approaching  to  veneration,  for 
their  individual  efforts  in  the  cause  of  peace,  with  how  warm  and  heartfelt  an 
admiration  will  his  name  and  memory  be  embalmed  in  the  cherished  recollection 
of  a  grateful  world,  whose  far-sighted  policy,  active  philanthropy,  and  skilful 
diplomacy,  shall  summon,  not  his  kindred,  not  his  fellow-townsmen,  not  his 
political  partisans  and  abettors,  not  the  immediate  members  or  confederates 
*  146  of  his  own  nation  merely,  but  the  great  *  family  of  nations,  to  meet  in  a 
friendly  council — an  august  assembly! — to  consult  together  for  the  common 
good,  to  promote  the  general  welfare  of  mankind,  to  cause  the  sword  to  be 
unsheathed,  the  bayonet  to  be  unfixed,  and  to  bid  the  iron-tongued  artillery  no 
longer  cause  the  nations  to  quake  before  its  thunder.  Not  that  the  memorials 
referred  to  this  Committee  contemplate  the  total  discharge  of  your  navy,  the 
entire  dismantling  of  your  forts,  the  immediate  disbanding  of  your  regular  troops, 
or  the  disorganizing  of  your  militia.  The  sword  of  justice  must  be  uplifted  still. 
The  armed  police  of  nations  must  remain  on  the  alert.  The  court-room  does 
not  supersede  the  necessity  of  the  watch-house.  Yet  the  trial  by  jury  has 
superseded,  and  may  well  supplant  the  trial  by  combat;  and  arbitration, 
or  a  Court  of  Nations,  may  be  made  the  final  resort,  instead  of  an  appeal  to 
arms. 

In  arriving  at  this  conclusion,  your  Committee  are  happy  in  finding  the 
opinion  they  have  been  led  to  adopt,  founded  on  the  result  of  their  own  investiga- 
tion, supported  by  the  deliberately  and  publicly  expressed  opinions  of  others, 
for  whose  decision,  in  regard  to  a  subject  of  this  nature,  they  entertain  no  light 
regard. 

At  a  former  session  of  the  Legislature  of  this  State,  the  Committee  to  whom 
was  referred  a  petition,  from  one  of  the  abovenamed  memorialists,  on  the  subject 
now  under  the  consideration  of  your  Committee,  in  reporting,  as  they  did,  in 
favor  of  the  prayer  of  the  petition,  and  unanimously  recommending  certain  reso- 


124  APPENDIX 

lutions  in  relation  thereto,  which  report  was  accepted,  and  the  resolutions  adopted 
in  the  Senate,  by  a  vote  of  nineteen  to  five,  have  expressed  an  opinion  to  which 
your  Committee  are  disposed  cordially  to  respond.  They  say,  "  It  is  thought  by 
the  Committee  that  some  umpire,  either  temporary  or  permanent,  by  which 
disputes  between  nations  may  be  decided,  is  by  no  means  a  visionary  project. 
Such  an  umpire  will  certainly  be  practicable,  whenever  public  opinion,  in  civilized 
nations,  shall  be  suflSciently  enlightened  to  sanction  it."  The  Committee  further 
remark:  "  It  is  believed  that  the  Legislature  of  this  Commonwealth  would  not  go 
far  in  advance  of  public  opinion,  by  some  declarative  act  favorable  to  this  pacific 
mode  of  terminating  the  controversies  of  nations.  Such  a  declaration,  if  not 
utterly  destitute  of  ground  to  stand  upon,  would  be  at  least  harmless ;  and  no  man 
of  high  moral  feeling,  or  moral  courage,  can  hesitate  how  to  act,  when  the  alterna- 
tive presented  is,  on  the  one  hand,  the  possibility  of  accomplishing  an  incalculable 
public  good,  and,  on  the  other,  the  danger  of  encountering  the  chilling  incredulity 
or  heartless  raillery  of  those  who  do  not  know  how  to  appreciate  his  motives." 
The  Committee  further  say:  "If  a  public  attempt  is  ever  to  be  made  to 
*  147  bring  war  into  discredit,  and  to  devise  *  some  amicable  mode  of  settling 
disputes  between  nations,  it  may  be  well  now  for  some  public  body  to  feel 
the' way.  And  no  where  can  this  beginning  be  more  suitable  than  in  Massachu- 
setts." And  in  speaking  of  the  effects  to  flow  from  the  measure,  the  Committee 
say:  "It  will  show  the  people  of  this  Commonwealth,  that  when  solicited  to 
express  an  opinion  upon  a  great  national  subject  of  vital  concern,  a  subject  which 
can  excite  no  conflict  of  party  passions,  we  do  not  turn  a  deaf  ear  to  the  call; 
that  we  do  not  maintain  a  heartless  silence,  but  return  a  kind  and  generous 
response  to  the  voice  of  those  noble  philanthropists,  who  would  save  mankind 
from  evils  into  which  those  in  times  gone  by  have  rushed  headlong,  and  which 
they  have  been  obliged  to  rue  when  it  was  too  late  to  escape  them."  In  these 
sentiments,  your  Committee  think,  there  is  a  magnanimity  which  will  insure 
a  ready  and  full  response  from  every  American  breast.  Such  sentiments,  they 
think,  cannot  be  too  widely  disseminated. 

The  Committee  of  the  Society  for  the  Promotion  of  Permanent  and  Universal 
Peace,  established  at  London,  in  their  seventeenth  annual  report,  speaking  of  the 
proposition  now  under  the  consideration  of  your  Committee,  say :  "  What  is  there 
in  this  proposal  that  does  not  commend  itself  to  the  good  sense  of  every  man? 
It  is  only  an  extension  of  that  principle  of  legislation,  which  settles  private  dis- 
putes by  arbitration  or  courts  of  law,  instead  of  leaving  every  one  to  right  him- 
self, which  might  result  in  violence  and  murder."  After  speaking  of  the  doings 
in  this  country,  and  in  Switzerland,  relative  to  this  measure,  they  say:  "Your 
Committee  have  watched,  with  a  lively  interest,  these  proceedings  of  their 
brethren  and  fellow-laborers  in  America  and  Geneva;  their  own  labors  have  not 
yet  been  in  this  direction,  though  they  have,  for  some  time  past,  held  themselves 
in  readiness,  at  a  suitable  opportunity,  to  bring  this  subject  more  immediately 
under  the  consideration  of  the  British  public  and  of  the  government."  At  the 
eighteenth  annual  meeting  of  the  London  Peace  Society,  the  subject  of  a  Court  of 
Nations  was  discussed,  and  the  following  resolution  was  moved  and  carried: 


APPENDIX  125 

"That  the  continuance  of  peace  calls  for  our  grateful  acknowledgments  to  Al- 
mighty God,  and  we  sincerely  hope  that  the  experience  of  its  advantages  may 
induce  the  powers  of  Europe  and  America  to  endeavor  to  prevent  the  recur- 
rence of  war,  by  the  adoption  of  a  peaceful  and  rational  mode  of  settling  their 
differences  by  arbitration."  This  meeting,  and  the  subject  discussed  at  it,  appears 
to  have  been  noticed  with  commendation  by  the  British  press.  As  an  instance 
of  the  tone  assumed  on  the  occasion,  the  following  remarks,  from  the  London 
Mercantile  Journal,  will  not  be  read  without  interest.  After  speaking  of 
•  148  the  rapid  progress  of  the  principles  and  policy  of  *  peace,  it  is  remarked: 
"  In  a  mercantile  point  of  view,  this  subject  is  very  important,  and  every 
mercantile  man  should  be  a  member  of  the  Peace  Society.  What  becomes  of  trade 
during  the  existence  of  war?  Is  not  war  a  total  interruption  of,  and  a  complete 
curse  to  trade?  And  in  this  country,  which  is  a  commercial  country,  ought  above 
all  to  study  the  things  which  make  for  peace,  as  upon  peace  commerce  depends, 
and  upon  commerce  England  depends.  Reason  and  experience,  and  not  guns 
and  swords,  are  the  best  arbiters  between  man  and  man,  and  ought,  indeed,  to  be 
the  only  arbiters  between  rational  beings. 

Physical  contests  are  the  characteristics  of  brutes,  which  we  do  not  allow  to 
possess  reason.  War  has  hitherto  been  the  game  at  which  kings  and  generals 
have  played,  whilst  the  people  have  found  them  in  money  wherewith  to  carry 
it  on;  but  the  people  are  becoming  wiser,  and  choose  rather  to  keep  their  money 
in  their  pockets.  But  if  the  principles  of  the  Peace  Society  were  universal,  there 
would  never  need  be  any  war,  even  of  self-defence,  because  there  never  would 
be  any  aggression.  In  the  beautiful  imagery  of  eastern  poetry,  men  would  convert 
their  swords  into  ploughshares.  Europe  has  now  long  been  at  peace,  and  may  she 
continue  to  be  so!  and  we  expect  that  the  diffusion  of  knowledge  will  increas- 
ingly secure  its  unnumbered  blessings  to  all  mankind.  Our  national  debt  of 
eight  hundred  millions  is  a  monument  to  the  folly,  false  glory,  mischief,  and 
curse  of  war.  Nations,  as  they  become  enlightened,  will  survey  this  monument, 
and  read  its  inscription;  and  the  experience  on  this  subject,  which  has  cost 
us  so  much,  will  be  given  to  them  for  nothing.  Such  is  our  own  deep  conviction 
of  the  unnecessariness,  folly,  ruination  and  mischief  of  all  war;  and  such  our 
persuasion  of  the  advantages,  wisdom  and  glory  of  peace,  that  we  say,  '  success 
to  the  Peace  Society — ^may  all  society  throughout  both  hemispheres  of  this  well- 
peopled  world,  become  one  great  Peace  Society; '  and  say  amen  to  the  malediction, 
'  cursed  be  the  hand  that  again  kindles  the  fires  of  war !  * " 

Your  Committee  have  quoted  these  remarks  thus  at  large,  believing  them  to 
be  of  no  light  import  in  this  connection,  conveying,  as  we  have  reason  to  think 
they  do,  the  sentiments  of  a  great  and  highly  respectable  portion  of  the  more 
intelligent  classes  of  the  British  public;  and  for  the  same  reason  we  are  grati- 
fied to  see  the  publication  of  the  following  sentiment  in  the  Quarterly  Journal 
of  the  British  Peace  Society:  it  is  from  a  Hartford  County  Report.  "The 
benevolent  proposal  of  instituting  a  high  court,  to  which  may  be  referred  for 
equitable  and  final  adjustment  all  international  disputes,  deserves  the  serious  con- 


126  APPENDIX 

Bideration  of  the  '  powers  that  be,'  and  of  every  friend  of  peace.    It  is  hoped,  that 
measures  may  be  adopted  in  different  countries,  to  call  forth  a  public 

*  149   *  expression  of  the  opinion  of  the  people,  and  requests,  to  their  respective 

governments  to  adopt  this  specific  measure."  The  measure  has  been  ap- 
proved at  various  public  meetings  in  different  parts  of  Great  Britain.  To  select 
one  instance  from  many:  at  a  meeting  of  the  Newcastle  auxiliary  to  the  London 
Society  for  the  Promotion  of  Permanent  and  Universal  Peace,  one  of  the  speakers 
observed,  "  he  wished  the  Society  possessed  the  means  of  extending  their 
principles  into  other  countries,  and  then  he  trusted  that  the  system  of  national 
arbitration  would  become  matured  and  generally  acted  on."  Sentiments  of  indi- 
viduals and  societies  on  the  continent,  in  France,  Geneva,  and  elsewhere,  equally 
friendly  to  the  measure,  have  been  laid  before  your  Committee,  but  they  deem 
further  citation  on  this  point  unnecessary. 

Your  Committee,  consistently  with  what  they  deem  their  duty  on  an  occasion 
like  the  present,  and  as  an  organ  of  the  highest  representative  body  in  a  commu- 
nity so  enlightened  as  that  comprising  the  citizens  of  this  Commonwealth,  cannot 
withhold  their  hearty  approbation  of  the  signal  instance  of  triumphant  benevo- 
lence recently  given  by  his  majesty  William  IV,  in  his  successful  proffer  of 
friendly  mediation,  during  the  recent  misunderstanding  between  the  governments 
of  the  United  States  and  France:  a  mediation  most  magnanimous  in  its  spirit, 
and  most  honorable  to  the  British  king,  as  the  monarch  of  a  powerful,  highly 
civilized,  intelligent  and  Christian  people:  a  mediation  most  happily  and  fully 
successful  in  the  attainment  of  the  unspeakably  important  object  in  view;  and 
hence  demanding  the  public  and  grateful  acknowledgments  of  those  who  were  so 
greatly  benefited  by  it.  A  mediation  indicating,  in  its  origin,  acceptance  and 
results,  a  radical  change  and  permanent  advance  in  public  sentiment,  which  can- 
not but  be  regarded  as  most  auspicious  to  the  dearest  interests  of  mankind;  and 
also  as  clearly  demonstrating  the  practicability,  provided  the  attention  of  the 
several  nations  can  be  called  to  the  subject,  of  devising,  introducing  and  establish- 
ing some  mode  of  determining  disputes  between  civilized  nations  other  than 
that  of  an  appeal  to  arms.  In  fine,  a  mediation,  which,  when  the  bonds  of 
amity  were  broken,  when  the  ultimate  stand  had  been  taken,  when  the  doors  of 
reconciliation  were  closing,  when  a  hostile  attitude  was  already  assumed  and 
forces  were  collecting,  and  arms  were  burnishing,  and  navies  were  manned  and  fit- 
ting out  for  service,  bid  that  phantom  falsely  styled  national  honor  to  disappear, 
caused  reason  to  resume  her  seat,  allowed  justice  to  uplift  her  scales,  and,  in  so 
doing,  prevented  an  astonished  universe  from  beholding,  and  disburdened  the  pen 
of  the  future  historian  from  recording,  yet  other  bloody  acts,  revolting 

•  160   spectacles,  and  dismal  legends  to  be  chronicled  with   *  those  of  Ostend, 

Aboukir  and  Alexandria,  the  Rhine  reddened  and  swollen  with  the  gory 
torrents  successively  poured  into  it  from  Tournay,  Kayserslautem,  Josselies, 
Cologne,  Manheim,  Mayence,  Frankenthal  and  Fribourg,  the  slaughter  of  the 
Burmese,  the  desolations  of  the  Camatic,  the  massacre  at  Scio,  the  battle  of 
Borodino,  the  passage  of  the  Beresina,  and,  finally,  the  field  of  Waterloo:  acts 


APPENDIX  127 

which, — while  causing  blood  to  flow  in  torrents,  depriving  old  age  of  its  prop, 
and  infancy  of  its  provider,  extending  desolation  over  sea  and  land,  and  introduc- 
ing wretchedness  to  the  fireside  of  the  hovel,  paralyzing  the  arm  of  industry 
abroad,  and  agonizing  the  heart  at  home ;  aiming  a  death-blow  at  commerce,  manu- 
factures, and  the  useful  arts, — ^would  nevertheless  lay  claim  to  be  deemed  honor- 
able when  committed  by  nations  though  they  would  be  universally  denounced 
as  barbarous  and  brutish,  if  done  by  individuals.  In  this  view  of  the  case,  your 
Committee  ask,  foreseeing  these  acts  and  dreading  these  then  impending  evils,  if 
joy  did  not  thrill  every  American  heart,  on  hearing  the  noble  offer  of  his  august 
majesty  the  king  of  England,  to  become  the  friendly  arbiter  between  the  govern- 
ments of  France  and  the  United  States?  two  nations  whose  friendly  intercourse 
and  mutual  good  oflSces  had,  since  the  very  commencement  of  our  existence  as  a 
nation,  been  cemented  by  the  golden  chain  of  commerce.  A  noble  umpirage! 
which  may  have  prevented  not  only  the  estrangement  of  two  most  friendly 
nations,  but  also  the  waste  of  millions  of  money  and  the  destruction  of  thousands 
of  human  lives,  in  addition  to  the  blow,  fatal  it  might  have  been,  inflicted  on 
the  advance  of  liberal  principles  and  the  establishment  of  free  institutions,  and 
setting  the  world  one  more  injurious  example  of  the  baneful  custom  of  engaging 
in  war  for  the  assertion  of  right.  Your  Committee  feel  unfeigned  delight  in 
recurring  to  this  most  magnanimous  instance  of  enlightened  policy  in  the  gov- 
ernment of  that  country  in  whose  just  fame  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  will 
ever  feel  a  pride,  regarding  and  cherishing  it  in  memory  as  the  mother  country,  in 
whose  bosom  was  fostered  that  attachment  to  liberal  principles,  and  that  love 
of  freedom,  to  which  this  republic  is  indebted  for  its  being. 

Your  Committee  have  thus  laid  before  you  the  results  of  their  inquiries  in 
this  branch  of  the  investigation  assigned  to  them,  from  a  persuasion  that  the 
information  elicited  in  reference  to  this  subject  will  be  regarded  with  more  than 
ordinary  interest  by  every  one  accustomed  to  measure,  with  a  practised  eye,  the 
movement  of  public  sentiment  and  feeling;  and  they  have  also  been  actuated  in 
giving  the  foregoing  exposition  from  a  deep  and  pervading  sense  of  the  solemn 
responsibility    under    which    they    lie    in    having   had    committed    to    them    a 

subject  which,  in  their  view,  yields  to  no  other  of  past  or  present  time,  in 
*  151    reference  to  *  the  varied,  extensive,  and  all-absorbing  interests  involved  in 

its  decision.  They  regard  the  ultimate  result  of  the  proposed  measure,  as 
one  which,  if  the  measure  be  now  adopted  and  carried  forward  by  the  Legislature 
of  this  Commonwealth,  and  if  it  be  countenanced  and  carried  into  execution  by 
the  Executive  of  the  United  States,  and  eventually  concurred  in  by  the  diff'erent 
powers  who  may  be  invited  to  cooperate  to  that  end,  will  eventually  confer  on 
Massachusetts,  on  the  United  States,  and  on  the  age  in  which  it  is  achieved,  a 
renown  whose  duration  will  be  coeval  with  the  existence  of  our  race.  With  this 
inadequate  view  of  the  subject,  the  Committee  unanimously  recommend  the  follow- 
ing resolutions,  for  the  adoption  of  the  Legislature. 
Per  order  of  the  Committee. 

Stephen  Faibbanks,  Chairman, 


128  APPENDIX 

Commontocaltt)  o(  fiUMathwUttg, 

In  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-seven. 

Resolves  in  relation  to  a  Congress  of  Nations. 

Resolved,  That  the  resort  to  war,  to  settle  questions  of  national  profit  or  honor, 
is  a  practice  derived  from  the  barbarism  of  former  ages,  and  inconsistent  with 
the  enlightened  philanthropy  of  the  present,  still  more  adverse  to  the  benign 
principles  of  Christianity,  productive  of  extensive  distractions,  misery  and  cor- 
ruptions, and  usually  inefficient  for  the  purposes  for  which  it  is  commenced,  and 
henoe  it  is  incumbent  on  all  civilized  communities  to  devise  measures  for  its 
suppression. 

Resolved,  That  the  institution  of  a  Congress  or  Court  of  Nations  appears  to 
be,  at  present,  the  best  practical  method  by  which  the  disputes  between  nations 
can  be  adjusted,  and  the  appeal  to  arms  avoided. 

Resolved,  That  it  be  recommended  to  the  Executive  of  the  United  States,  to 
open  a  negotiation  with  such  other  governments  as,  in  its  wisdom,  it  may  deem 
prpper,  with  a  view  to  effect  so  important  an  arrangement. 

Resolved,  That  His  Excellency  the  Governor  of  this  Commonwealth  be  requested 
to  transmit  a  copy  of  this  Report,  and  the  accompanying  Resolutions,  to  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  and  to  the  Executive  of  each  of  the  States,  to  be 
communicated  to  the  Legislatures  of  the  several  States,  inviting  their  expressi<ni 
of  sentiment  and  cooperation  in  favor  of  the  end  in  view. 

*  152       *  In  searching  the  records  of  the  General  Court  of  the  State  of  Massachu- 
setts,  I  find  the  following  resolves,  passed  in  1838,  of  which  I  was  ignorant 
before,  and  add  them  in  this  place. 

Coiranontoeaitt  of  iSoKiSacttutetttf. 

In  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-eight. 

Resolves  in  relation  to  a  Congress  of  Nations. 

Resolved,  That  offensive  war  is  incompatible  with  the  true  spirit  of  Chris- 
tianily. 

Resolved,  That  the  great  importance  of  the  subject  renders  it  the  duty  of  all 
civilized  communities  to  unite  in  the  adoption  of  any  practicable  plan,  calculated 
to  effect  so  noble  an  object  as  the  abolition  of  war,  and  the  preservation  of  peace 
among  the  nations  of  the  earth. 

Resolved,  That  the  institution  of  a  Congress  of  Nations  for  the  purpose  of 
framing  a  code  of  international  law,  and  establishing  a  high  court  of  arbitration 
for  the  settlement  of  controversies  between  nations,  is  a  scheme  worthy  of  the 
careful  attention  and  consideration  of  all  enlightened  governments. 


APPENDIX  129 

Resolved,  That  His  Excellency  the  Governor  of  this  Commonwealth  be  requested 
to  transmit  a  copy  of  these  resolves,  with  the  accompanying  report,  to  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  and  to  the  Executive  of  each  of  the  States,  to  be  com- 
municated to  their  respective  Legislatures,  inviting  their  cooperation  in  the  pro- 
posed object. 
House  of  Representatives,  April  25,  1838. — Passed. 

Robert  C.  Winthbop,  Speaker. 
In  Senate,  April  25,  1838.— Passed. 

Mtbon  Lawbencb,  President. 
April  25,  1838.— Approved. 

Edwabd  Evebett. 


No.  7. 

•  153  •  First  Petition  to  Congress,  presented  hy  the  "Nevo  York  Peace  Society,  the 
American  Peace  Society,  the  Vermont  Peace  Society,  and  many  other 
individuals,  the  members  of  no  peace  society. 

To  the  Honorable,  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled  on  the  first  Monday  in  December,  1837. 
The  undersigned,  members  of  the  New  York  Peace  Society,  and  other  individuals 

friendly  to  the  Peace  cause,  respectfully  present  the  following  Petition : 

That  your  honorable  body  accede  to  the  proposition  of  the  Mexican  Congress, 
as  couched  in  the  following  terms,  contained  in  a  decree  of  that  Congress  dated 
May  20th,  1837,  to  wit: 

"  The  government  is  hereby  authorized  to  compromise  the  claims  which  the 
government  of  the  United  States  has  instituted,  or  may  hereafter  institute;  and 
those  in  which  they  cannot  agree  may  be  submitted  to  the  decision  of  a  friendly 
power,  the  United  States  of  America  agreeing  thereto." 

Your  petitioners  feel,  that  it  would  greatly  derogate  from  the  high  char- 
acter hitherto  sustained  by  this  republic,  to  decline  so  honorable  a  proposal  as 
that  contained  in  the  foregoing  article;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  it  would 
redound  to  its  highest  honor,  promptly  and  frankly  to  comply  with  it. 

It  is  a  universally  admitted  proposition,  that  a  disinterested  party  is  more 
likely  to  decide  impartially  in  relation  to  a  dispute,  than  the  parties  interested; 
and  it  is  for  this  reason  that  men  in  their  social  capacity  have  consented  to  the 
establishment  of  judicial  tribunals,  to  which  to  refer  such  of  their  individual  dis- 
putes as  they  cannot  satisfactorily  adjust  between  themselves.  For  the  same 
reason,  in  the  opinion  of  your  petitioners,  ought  international  disputes  of  a 
similar  kind  to  be  referred  to  a  disinterested  party.  And  they  are  the  more 
encouraged  to  hope,  that  this  petition  will  be  favorably  received  by  your  honor- 
able body,  from  the  consideration  of  the  fact,  that  the  principle  of  arbitration 
has  been  adopted  by  the  government  of  the  United  States  in  several  instances 
already,  whereby  the  soiindness  of  that  principle  has  been  clearly  recognized,  and 


180  APPENDIX 

its  compatibility  with  the  honor,  dignity,  and  rights  of  the  nation  virtually 
admitted. 

Your  petitioners  take  this  opportunity  to  pray  your  honorable  body  to 

*  154   adopt  the  principle  of  reference  to  a  third  party  of  such  international  *  dis- 

putes as  cannot  be  amicably  adjusted  by  the  parties  themselves,  as  an 
invariable  rule  of  action,  instead  of  an  occasional  one.  They  can  see  no  possible 
reason  why  it  should  not  be  the  rule  at  all  times,  as  well  as  on  particular  occa- 
sions. There  is  no  time  that  a  party  to  a  dispute  is  not  less  likely  to  decide 
impartially  in  relation  to  its  merits,  than  a  disinterested  party  would  be;  and, 
consequently,  there  is  altcaya  the  same  reason  why  parties,  whether  individual 
or  international,  should  refer  to  arbitration  such  disputes  as  they  are  unable 
to  adjust  amicably  between  themselves. 

Your  petitioners  would  further  pray  your  honorable  body,  in  pursuance  of 
this  principle,  to  send  forth  a  proposal  to  the  various  governments  of  the  world, 
to  unite  with  your  honorable  body  in  the  establishment  of  a  great  international 
board  of  arbitration,  or  a  Congress  of  Nations,  to  which  to  refer  international 
disputes;  and,  also,  for  the  purpose  of  digesting  and  preparing  a  regular  code 
of  international  law,  obligatory  on  such  nations  as  may  afterwards  adopt  it. 

If  the  principle  of  arbitration  is  to  become  the  order  of  the  day,  then  there 
can  be  no  question  as  to  the  best  mode;  and  if  there  is  to  be  a  law  of  nations 
at  all,  it  is  equally  clear  with  regard  to  the  propriety  of  its  being  embodied  in  a 
regular  code.  No  government,  engrossed  with  its  own  affairs,  can  devote  the  time 
requisite  to  the  thorough  examination  of  the  various  international  disputes;  and 
hence  the  necessity  for  the  appointment  of  a  board  of  arbitrators  for  the  pur- 
pose, who  would  be  able  to  devote  to  the  business  their  undivided  attention.  And 
besides  this,  a  board  of  arbitrators,  composed  of  delegates  from  various  nations, 
would,  by  containing  within  itself  a  counterpoise  of  interests,  be  more  likely  to 
give  an  impartial  decision,  than  would  any  single  government.  With  regard  to 
the  formation  of  a  code  of  international  law,  all  the  reasons  that  can  be  assigned 
for  the  enactment  of  law  in  general,  are  equally  applicable  to  the  enactment 
of  an  international  code.  The  principles  of  law  need  to  be  settled  and  defined. 
For  want  of  this,  in  the  case  of  the  law  of  nations,  many  wars  have  occurred. 
And  who  so  suitable  to  prepare  an  international  code  of  law,  as  an  international 
tribunal  of  the  kind  contemplated?  Assuredly,  it  is  not  competent  for  one  nation 
to  decide  what  shall  be  the  law  for  all  the  nations  of  the  world,  in  their  inter- 
course with  one  another.  Nothing  short  of  an  international  tribunal  is,  in  the 
opinion  of  your  petitioners,  competent  to  the  preparation  of  an  international  code 
of  law — and  competent  to  the  explication  and  application  of  that  law,  after  its 
enactment,  in  cases  of  international  dispute.     And  yet,  your  petitioners  do  not 

propose  a  measure  which  would  be  any  infringement,  even  the  least,  on  the 

•  155    independence  and  sovereignty  of  nations.    As  they  have  *  already  hinted, 

they  propose  only,  that  this  law  shall  be  obligatory  on  those  nations  that 
may  adopt  it,  after  its  enactment  by  the  tribunal. 

Nor  do  your  petitioners  propose,  that  that  tribunal  be  clothed  with  power 
io  enforce  its  decisions,  but  that  it  rely  for  its  efficiency  solely  on  the  impartiality 


APPENDIX  131 

and  correctness  of  those  decisions,  and  the  honor  and  justice  of  the  parties  con- 
cerned. And  when  your  petitioners  consider  the  tenacity  with  which  nations 
adhere  to  the  point  of  honor,  and  that  they  never  embark  in  war  without  a 
plausible  excuse,  they  are  forced  to  the  conclusion,  that  a  righteous  decision  of 
an  international  dispute,  emanating  from  an  authorized,  international  tribunal, 
in  accordance  with  an  international  code  of  law,  accompanied  by  the  reasons  for 
that  decision,  and  appealing  solely  to  national  honor  and  justice,  could  not  fail 
to  meet  with  a  favorable  reception  by  the  parties.  To  suppose  otherwise,  would 
be  to  suppose,  that  those  vast  portions  of  mankind  denominated  nations,  that 
stand  so  much  on  their  dignity  and  honor,  have  less  pretension  to  those  noble 
qualities,  than  have  two  common  citizens  who  refer  a  dispute  to  arbitrators  in 
the  ordinary  concerns  of  private  life,  and  who  would  consider  themselves  eternally 
disgraced,  were  they  to  disregard  a  fair  decision.  Indeed,  to  suppose  that  nations 
would  not  heed  a  decision  of  the  kind,  would  be  an  impeachment  of  their  high 
character,  and  an  insult  to  their  fair  fame. 

But  your  petitioners  do  not  stake  their  cause  on  the  certainty  of  the  eflSciency 
of  the  plan  proposed.  They  would  say,  that  if  there  is  even  a  tendency  in  the 
scheme  to  prevent  such  an  evil  as  war,  nations  ought  to  adopt  it.  Nay,  they 
will  go  further,  and  say,  that  if  there  is  a  remote  probability  of  its  preventing 
a  single  war;  yea,  if  it  is  not  demonstrable  that  it  will  have  no  tendency  to  pre- 
vent war;  nations  ought  to  make  trial  of  it,  to  say  the  least.  The  nation  refusing 
to  participate  in  such  an  attempt  at  the  pacification  of  the  world,  would  manifest 
no  desire  to  avoid  war,  and  could  no  longer  denominate  it  its  last  resort.  On 
the  other  hand,  should  the  trial  of  the  scheme  be  made,  and  even  prove  abortive, 
nations  will  not  have  labored  in  vain:  they  will  thereby  have  manifested  some 
disposition  to  avoid  war,  and  could  then  with  some  appearance  of  truth  denomi- 
nate it  their  last  resort — which  otherwise  they  could  not  do. 

Your  petitioners  feel  desirous,  that  this  country  should  not  only  combine 
with  others  in  promoting  the  great  and  glorious  scheme  under  consideration,  but 
that  she  should  lead  the  way,  by  sending  forth  the  gbeat  peoposal  for  a  Con- 
gress of  Nations,  to  the  various  nations  of  the  earth.  They  would  fain  see  their 
own  country  stand  forth  in  advance  of  all  others  in  this  great,  this  glorious,  this 
heaven-born  enterprise,  presenting  to  the  admiring  view  of  the  whole  uni- 
•  156  verse  a  *  spectacle  of  moral  grandeur  and  sublimity  unequalled  in  the 
career  of  nations,  and  entitled  to  imperishable  renown.  Fain  would  they 
see  the  names  of  their  rulers  inscribed  on  the  same  page  of  immortality  with 
those  of  a  Numa  Pompilius,  an  Antoninus  Pius,  a  Leopold  of  Lorraine,  a  Wal- 
pole,  a  Fleury,  a  Maximilian  II,  a  Rudolph  II,  a  Ferdinand  VI,  a  Robert  I,  and  a 
William  Penn,  and  not  on  that  page  of  infamy  crimsoned  with  human  blood. 

Your  petitioners  would  be  among  the  last,  to  base  their  cause  on  any  ground 
but  that  of  its  own  intrinsic  merits.  Nevertheless,  it  is  always  gratifying  to 
the  friends  of  a  good  cause,  to  know  that  it  has  the  countenance  and  support 
of  the  wise  and  the  good. 

[Here  follow  extracts  from  the  first  and  second  report  of  the  Legislature  of 
Massachusetts,  which  it  is  unnecessary  to  repeat.] 


182  APPENDIX 

Your  Petitioners  also  find  the  sage  Franklin  holding  language  like  the  fol- 
lowing: "  We  daily  make  gpreat  improvements  in  natural,  there  is  one  I  wish 
to  see  in  moral,  philosophy; — the  discovery  of  a  plan  that  would  induce  and 
oblige  nations  to  settle  their  disputes,  without  first  cutting  one  another's  throats. 
When  will  human  nature  be  su£5ciently  improved  to  see  the  advantage  of  this?" 
"  Wonderful,"  says  the  illustrious  Jefl'erson,  "  has  been  the  progress  of  human 
improvement  in  other  respects.  Let  us  hope,  then,  that  the  law  of  nature,  which 
makes  virtuous  conduct  produce  benefit,  and  vice  loss,  to  the  agent,  in  the  long 
run;  which  has  sanctioned  the  common  principle  that  honesty  is  the  best  policy, 
will  in  time  influence  the  proceedings  of  nations  as  well  as  individuals;  that  we 
shall  at  length  be  sensible,  that  war  is  an  instrument  entirely  inefiScient  toward 
redressing  wrong ;  that  it  multiplies,  instead  of  indemnifying  losses.  These  truths 
are  palpable,  and  must,  in  the  progress  of  time,  have  their  influence  on  the  minds 
and  conduct  of  nations." 

But  your  petitioners  forbear  from  further  quotation.  Enough  has  been  pro- 
duced to  show,  that  were  the  rulers  of  the  world  such  men  as  our  Franklins 
and  Jeffersons,  this  project  would  not  want  supporters.  And  could  those 
venerable,  patriot  sages  revisit  the  earth,  and  once  more  take  their  seats  in  the 
American  Congress,  we  doubt  not  that  they  would  be  among  the  foremost  to  rise 
up  in  your  midst,  and  advocate  the  adoption  of  the  measure  recommended  in 
this  petition.  May  we  not  hope,  that  your  honorable  body  will,  by  the  adoption 
of  a  similar  course,  prove  yourselves  in  this  respect  a  Congress  of  Franklins  and 
Jeffersons — a  Congress  of  sages  and  philanthropists — a  Congress  acting  for  the 
highest  interests,  not  of   a  single  nation  at  a  particular  period,  but  of  tb« 

whole  human  family  henceforth  to  the  end  of  timeT 
•  167       That  the  custom  of  war  has  hitherto  prevailed,  is  no  reason  for  its  *  longer 

continuance.  We  of  the  present  generation  claim  to  live  in  an  age  of 
superior  light,  in  which  customs  are  brought  to  the  test  of  reason.  This  touch- 
stone needs  but  to  be  applied  to  the  custom  of  war,  to  procure  at  once  its  aboli- 
tion. It  is  a  custom  altogether  unsuited  to  the  high  state  of  civilization  of  the 
present  period.  Time  it  is,  that  some  general  movement  were  made  among 
the  nations,  to  bring  it  to  a  termination.  Suffice  it  to  have  outlived  customs  far 
less  barbarous,  which  have  disappeared  before  the  bright  beams  of  civilization, 
like  the  mists  of  morning  before  the  ascending  sun.  Too  long  has  this  hydra 
been  permitted  to  rear  his  horrid  crests  amid  scenes  of  civilization  and  refine- 
ment. Too  long  have  the  nations  of  Christendom,  professing  to  be  governed  by 
a  peaceful  religion,  been  subjected  by  their  warlike  policy  to  the  taxmts  of  the 
Jew,  the  scorn  of  the  Mussulman,  and  the  reproach  of  the  heathen.  The  rulers 
of  Christendom  owe  it  to  themselves,  they  owe  it  to  the  religion  they  profess, 
they  owe  it  to  the  human  race,  to  change  at  once  and  for  ever  their  international 
policy,  by  the  adoption  of  a  pacific  mode  of  adjusting  international  disputes. 
Nor  can  they,  with  all  the  light  that  is  blazing  on  them,  any  longer  forbear 
to  adopt  such  a  measure,  without  incurring  the  most  awful  guilt.  War  that 
is  not  indeed  the  last  resort,  is  wholesale  murder;  and  until  every  probable 
expedient  has  been  resorted  to,  to  prevent  it,  it  is  not  the  last  resort.    Your 


APPENDIX  183 

petitioners,  therefore,  feel,  that  unless  the  governments  of  the  world,  and  espe- 
cially of  Christendom,  will  make  a  sincere  trial  of  the  principle  of  arbitration  for 
the  adjustment  of  their  disputes,  and  thereby  bring  its  efllciency  to  the  full  test, 
they  cannot  embark  in  war  without  guilt  of  the  most  fearful  magnitude,  and 
the  deepest  die — the  guilt  of  the  blood  of  nations!  And  they  further  feel, 
that  it  would  not  only  be  an  immortal  honor  to  the  government  that  might  move 
first  in  this  great  undertaking,  by  making  a  proposition  of  the  kind  to  others,  but 
that  no  government  is  justifiable  in  waiting  for  another  to  make  the  first  move- 
ment. And,  finally,  they  feel  that  the  government  of  this  country,  above  all 
others,  is  under  obligation  to  be  the  foremost  in  this  instance.  Our  institutions, 
our  policy,  the  genius  of  our  country,  our  high  pretensions  to  superiority  in  all 
that  is  great  and  ennobling,  demand  it  at  our  hands.  And  your  petitioners  do 
most  fervently  hope,  that  your  honorable  body  will  not  turn  a  deaf  ear  to  the 
call,  but  that,  by  your  timely  and  favorable  action  in  the  case,  you  will  prove  to 
the  world  that  all  these  claims  to  transcendent  excellence  are  not  in  vain. 


No.  8. 

*  158  *  Report  on  the  foregoing  Petition. 

Mr.  Leqabe,  from  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  made  the  following 
BEPOBT: 

The  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  to  whom  was  referred  the  memorial  of  the 

New  York  Peace  Society,  and  other  individuals  friendly  to  the  peace  cause, 

report  as  follows: 

The  prayer  of  the  memoralists  is  twofold.  They  desire,  in  the  first  place, 
that  our  differences  with  Mexico  should  be  referred  to  the  arbitration  of  a  third 
power.  The  House  is  already  informed  that,  to  this  extent,  their  petition  has  been 
answered  and  fulfilled  by  the  Executive — our  claims  upon  that  government  hav- 
ing, at  the  instance  of  the  latter,  been  submitted  to  an  umpire  of  its  own  choosing. 
So  far,  therefore,  as  the  object  of  the  memorialists  was  to  bring  about  this  prac- 
tical result  in  a  public  interest  of  great  importance  and  pressing  exigency,  it  has 
been  accomplished,  no  doubt,  to  their  entire  satisfaction. 

But  they  do  not  stop  here.  They  proceed  to  recommend  to  Congress  that  it 
"  adopt  the  principle  of  reference  to  a  third  power  of  such  international  disputes 
as  cannot  be  amicably  adjusted  by  the  parties  themselves,  as  an  invariable  rule 
of  action,  instead  of  an  occasional  one."  And  they  further  pray  that,  "in 
pursuance  of  this  principle,  a  proposal  be  sent  forth  by  this  government  to 
those  of  other  nations,  that  they  would  unite  with  it  in  the  establishment  of  a 
great  international  board  of  arbitration,  or  a  Congress  of  Nations,  to  which  to 
refer  international  disputes,  and  also  for  the  purpose  of  digesting  and  prepar- 
ing a  regular  code  of  international  law,  obligatory  on  such  nations  as  may  after- 
wards adopt  it."    They  think  that  this  board  of  arbitrators  should  be  composed 


184  APPENDIX 

of  delegates  from  various  nations,  and  that  to  this  board  should  be  confided  the 
forming  a  code  of  international  law. 

It  is  proper  to  observe,  however,  that  they  do  not  propose  this  code  "  shall 
be  binding  upon  any  nations  which  may  not  willingly  adopt  it,  after  its  enact- 
ment by  the  tribunal;  "  nor  do  they  propose  that  that  tribunal  be  clothed  with 
power  to  enforce  its  decisions;  but  that  it  shall  rely  for  its  eflSciency  solely  on  the 
impartiality  and  correctness  of  those  decisions,  and  the  honor  and  justice  of  the 
parties  concerned. 

The  petitioners  conclude,  by  expressing  a  desire  that  this  country  should  not 

only  combine  with  others  in  what  they  characterize  as  "  the  great  and 

*  159   glorious  scheme  under  consideration,"  but  that  they  "  should  •  lead  the 

way,  by  sending  forth  the  proposal  for  a  Congress  of  Nations  "  to  the 

various  governments  of  the  civilized  world. 

The  Committee  have  been  earnestly  pressed  to  take  this  latter  prayer  of  the 
petitioners  into  consideration,  and  to  make  a  direct,  full,  and  solemn  report, 
both  upon  its  principles  and  its  practicability.  It  is  in  compliance  with  a  desire 
thus  entertained  in  many  respectable  quarters,  that  they  have  the  honor  of  sub- 
mitting  to  the  House  the  following  reflections: 

T*he  Committee  need  scarcely  say  that  they  fully  appreciate  and  sympathize 
with  the  philanthropic  feelings  and  purposes  expressed  in  the  memorial.  They 
agree  that  the  union  of  all  nations,  in  a  state  of  peace,  under  the  restraints 
and  the  protection  of  law,  is  the  ideal  perfection  of  civil  society.  Not,  however, 
that  they  would  be  understood  as  affirming  that  war  has  always,  in  the  history 
of  mankind,  been  an  unmixed  or  uncompensated  evil.  They  do  not  think  bo. 
To  say  nothing  of  the  heroic  virtues  which  are  formed  under  its  stern  dis- 
cipline, and  exercised  by  its  trials  and  perils,  war  has,  in  fact,  been  often,  both 
in  ancient  and  in  modern  times,  a  mighty  and  even  a  necessary  instrument  of 
civilization.  It  is  sufficient,  in  this  connection,  barely  to  mention  the  names  of 
Alexander  and  Charlemagne.  But  the  Committee  also  think  that  those  times 
are  gone  by.  Far  other  agents  of  amelioration  and  progress  are  at  work  now — 
agents  infinitely  more  powerful  in  their  quiet  and  silent,  but  incessant  operation, 
and  whose  efficacy  would  be  greatly  impaired  by  war,  did  they  not  tend,  more 
than  any  thing  else,  to  supersede  and  put  an  end  to  it.  The  age  is  reproached 
with  being  a  mechanical  and  ignoble  one — with  its  sordid  love  of  gain,  its  plod- 
ding devotion  to  business,  and  its  preference  of  physical  comforts  and  personal 
accommodation,  to  objects  that  elevate  the  imagination  and  refine  the  taste  in 
art  and  literature.  This  reproach  is,  no  doubt,  to  a  certain  degree,  well  founded; 
but  we  must  not  forget  that  we  do  not  forego  (as  far  as  we  do)  the  advantages 
referred  to,  without  a  real,  and,  in  the  eye  of  sober  reason,  an  abundantly  adequate 
compensation.  It  is  true  that  the  most  peculiar  characteristic  of  the  civilization 
of  these  times  is  a  demand,  becoming  universal  among  all  classes  of  society, 
for  the  various  physical  comforts,  of  which  commerce  is  the  inexhaustible 
source.  But  it  is  this  very  peculiarity  that  opens  an  entirely  new  prospect  to  the 
human  race,  and  makes  the  present  moment  an  epoch  in  its  history.  This  com- 
mercial or  economical  civilization,  if  we  may  call  it  so,  is  reconstructing  society 


APPENDIX  135 

on  the  broadest  and  most  solid  basis.    It  is  essentially  democratic  in  its  char- 
acter and  tendencies.     It  pursues  steadily,  and  achieves,  with  more  and 

*  160   more  success  every  day,  the  greatest  good  of  the  greatest  *  number.     It 

is  every  where  increasing  population,  and  adding  immensely  to  the  fund 
that  employs  and  rewards  labor.  In  spite  of  many  disturbing  causes,  which  will 
disappear  in  the  progress  of  things,  it  is  elevating  the  poor  in  the  social  scale, 
providing  for  them  better  food,  raiment  and  lodging,  as  well  as  means  of  a  suitable 
moral  and  intellectual  education.  It  is  bringing  the  most  distant  families  of 
mankind,  as  it  were,  into  contact  with  one  another,  and  effacing  all  the  sharp  and 
salient  peculiarities  of  national  character  that  now  estrange  them  from  each 
other.  It  is  revealing  the  great  cardinal  truth  of  free  trade — so  pregnant  with 
moral  as  well  as  political  results — that  "self-love  and  social  are  the  same;" 
that  every  country  is  interested  in  the  prosperity  of  every  other;  that  production 
can  never  be  excessive,  because,  where  exchanges  are  untrammeled,  it  produces 
its  own  consumption;  that  nothing,  in  short,  can  be  more  shallow  in  science,  as 
well  as  sordid  and  narrow  in  spirit,  than  a  restrictive  policy  founded  upon  the 
idea  that  a  nation  can  only  enrich  itself  at  the  expense  of  its  neighbors,  or 
has  any  thing  to  gain,  in  the  long  run,  from  their  losses.  When  we  reflect  that, 
during  the  whole  of  the  last  century,  and  for  a  considerable  period  before,  the 
far  greater  part  of  the  blood  and  treasure  so  prodigally  lavished  in  almost 
incessant  war,  was  a  sacrifice,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  fallacious  views  of  com- 
mercial monopoly  and  colonial  dominion  considered  as  instrumental  to  that 
monopoly,  we  shall  fully  appreciate  the  importance  of  this  simple  truth,  once 
become,  as  it  will  infallibly  become,  a  settled  maxim  of  national  policy.  With 
notions  of  economy  and  personal  comfort,  such  as  are  made  the  reproach  of  the 
times,  mankind  are  not  likely  much  longer  to  acquiesce  in  the  wanton  and  prof- 
ligate waste  of  their  resources,  of  the  means  of  so  much  private  and  public 
prosperity,  in  contests  which — to  say  nothing  of  the  unspeakable'^  evils  that 
accompany  them^-cannot  possibly  result  in  any  adequate  advantage  to  either 
party.  Their  reluctance  to  take  up  arms  will  be  increased  by  a  regard  not  only 
to  their  own  interest  directly,  but  to  that  of  their  adversaries,  which  is  in 
efiTect  the  same  thing;  to  make  war  upon  their  customers  in  trade,  will  be  felt 
to  be  a  mischievous  and  suicidal  insanity.  This  motive  is,  perhaps,  not  a 
romantic  one;  but  it  is  not  the  less  powerful  for  addressing  itself  less  to 
sentiment  and  the  imagination  than  to  the  habitual  selfishness  of  human  nature. 
It  is  thus  that  physical  causes  are  producing  moral  effects  of  the  greatest  im- 
portance, and  that  political  economy  becomes  the  most  effective  auxiliary  of 
Christianity.  We  already  see,  in  a  manner  not  to  be  mistaken,  the  influence  of 
such   ideas   in   the   contemporary  history   of   Europe,   although   they  are   just 

beginning  to  take  hold  of  the  public  mind,  and  there  are  so  many  obstacles 

•  161    to  their  progress  in  the  actual  *  state  of  things  there.    It  is  scarcely  pos- 

sible to  imagine  a  greater  revolution  of  opinion,  in  the  same  time,  than  has 
occurred  since  the  peace  of  1815.  A  single  generation  is  not  yet  passed  away 
since  the  downfall  of  Napoleon,  and  his  military  despotism  begins  already  to 
strike  the  minds  of  men  as  a  barbarous  anomaly  in  such  an  age.    Since  the  last 


186  APPENDIX 

French  revolution,  causes  of  controversy,  without  number,  sufficient  to  have 
produced  desolating  wars  at  any  previous  epoch,  have  arisen  and  passed  away 
without  occasioning  one,  except  the  disputed  succession  in  Spain — an  exception 
that  proves  the  rule.  Much  is  due,  no  doubt,  to  the  personal  character  and  en- 
lightened views  of  those  whose  position  enabled  them  to  control  that  great  event; 
but,  let  it  be  remembered  that  that  character  and  those  views  were  themselves  the 
work  of  the  age  which  they  reflect  so  faithfully. 

The  Committee  will  add,  that  there  is  another  point  in  which  every  thing  that 
tends  to  preserve  the  peace  of  nations  will,  ere-long,  come  to  be  universally  re- 
garded  as  peculiarly  interesting  to  mankind:  they  allude  to  its  effect  in  promoting 
the  great  cause  of  limited  or  constitutional  government.  War  has  ever  been  the 
most  fruitful  source  of  arbitrary  power.  They  are,  indeed,  to  a  certain  extent, 
inseparable.  A  military  is,  necessarily,  in  spirit  and  effect,  a  de8p>otic,  and 
must  generally  be  a  monarchical  organization.  Not  only  so,  but  the  evil  tends 
to  propagate  and  to  perpetuate  itself.  One  great  power  arming  for  conquest 
compels  all  neighboring  powers  to  arm  for  defence;  and  it  is  not  a  vain  or  fanciful 
saying,  that  laws  are  silent  amidst  the  din  of  arms.  The  instinct  of  self-preserva- 
tion is  at  least  as  strong  in  nations  as  in  individuals.  They  ever  have  been,  and 
ever  will  be,  ready  to  sacrifice,  without  scruple,  their  dearest  rights  and  liberties 
in  order  to  maintain  their  national  independence.  The  yoke  of  the  foreigner 
is  so  galling  and  degrading,  that  there  is  no  other  which  mankind  are  not  willing 
to  bear  in  order  to  avoid  it.  "  The  salvation  of  the  people," — salus  populi, — 
at  whatever  cost  or  risk,  must  and  will  be  the  supreme  law,  under  every  form  of 
government.  The  dictators  of  republican  Rome,  the  terrible  despotism  of  the 
executive  committees  of  the  French  Convention,  are  only  instances  of  a  universal 
law  of  society  and  of  human  nature  iinder  such  circumstances.  Hence  the  impos- 
sibility,  for  the  present  at  least,  of  maintaining  such  institutions  as  ours  on  the 
continent  of  Europe. 

Mirabeau  embodied  the  whole  philosophy  of  the  subject  in  his  well-known 
apothegm,  that  France  was  "  geographically  monarchical."  The  federal  relations 
of  Europe  (for  Europe  is,  in  fact,  a  confederacy)  admit,  in  strict  theory,  of  no 
arbiter  but  the  sword;  and  the  independence  of  most  of  the  powers  has 
•  162  been  preserved — as  far  as  it  has  been  pre-*served  at  all — at  the  cost  of 
popular  liberty.  That  happy  compromise  by  which  the  wisdom  of  our 
fathers — availing  itself,  it  is  true,  of  such  circumstances  as  have  never  occurred 
elsewhere — has  reconciled,  on  this  continent,  the  sovereignty  of  the  States  with 
the  rights  of  individuals,  imder  a  peaceful,  judicial  administration  of  the  law, 
is  still,  and  is  likely  long  to  continue,  a  desideratum  there.  But  the  spirit  of  the 
age  is  gradually  becoming  more  favorable  to  such  institutions,  just  in  proportion  as 
it  is  becoming  less  disposed  to  war.  Peace  is  the  hope  of  liberty — peace,  consecrated 
as  the  standing,  fundamental  policy  of  the  world.  Such  a  state  of  opinion,  or 
such  a  condition  of  things  as  will  dispense  with  large  armies  and  military  disci- 
pline, with  a  power,  in  effect  dictatorial,  in  the  executive  department  of  govern- 
ments, and  with  the  ambition,  the  glory,  and  the  fatal  popularity  and  influence 
of  successful  generals;   such  a  perpetual  and  perfect  intercourse,  commercial 


APPENDIX  137 

and  otherwise,  among  men  as  will  mitigate  extremely,  if  not  extinguish,  all 
mutual  jealousy  and  hostility  between  nations  destined,  under  the  blessed  influ- 
ences of  Christian  civilization,  to  form  but  one  great  family,  and  will  thus 
deprive  politicians  of  the  occasion  of  turning  the  wildest  frenzy  and  worst 
calamities  of  mankind  into  a  means  of  sanctifying  the  abuses  of  government — 
will  inevitably  lead,  in  this  age,  to  the  general  establishment  of  representative 
institutions.  All  the  tendencies  of  commerce  and  industry  are  to  social  equality; 
peace  will  add  to  that  equality  rational  liberty  under  a  government  of  laws;  and 
both  will  tend  to  perpetuate,  by  a  natural  reaction,  the  causes  that  produced  them. 

Concurring  thus  fully  in  the  benevolent  objects  of  the  memorialists,  and 
believing  that  there  is  a  visible  tendency  in  the  spirit  and  institutions  of  the 
age  towards  the  practical  accomplishment  of  it  at  some  future  period,  the  Com- 
mittee regret  to  have  to  say  that  they  have  not  the  same  confidence  in  the  means 
recommended  in  the  petition.  They  are  of  opinion  that  reforms  so  fundamental, 
can  only  be  brought  about  by  the  gradual  progress  of  civilization,  and  in  con- 
sequence of  a  real  change  in  the  condition  of  society.  They  must  follow  events, 
and  conform  to  them ;  they  cannot,  by  any  contrivance  of  man,  be  made  to  precede 
and  control  them.  All  attempts,  in  such  matters,  except  by  bloody  revolutions  or 
conquests,  to  anticipate  the  natural  course  of  things,  are  entirely  unavailing. 

The  scheme  of  the  memorialists  is,  as  we  have  seen,  to  refer  all  international 
disputes  to  a  Congress  of  deputies,  and  to  authorize  that  Congress  to  digest 
a  code  of  public  law  that  shall  be  binding  only  on  such  powers  as  should  volun- 
tarily adopt  it. 

The  first  objection  to  this  plan  lies  upon  the  surface,  and  is  entirely 
*  163  *  fatal.  The  unanimous  consent  of  nations,  in  the  actual  state  of  the 
world,  to  such  a  proposal,  is — as  any  one  will  be  convinced  who  reflects 
a  moment  upon  their  political  relations,  or  will  but  cast  his  eye  over  a  map 
of  Europe — entirely  out  of  the  question;  and  the  refusal  of  a  single  great  power 
to  acquiesce  in  it,  would  alone  render  it  abortive.  This  is  not  matter  of  specula- 
tion; it  is  what  has  actually  occurred  in  one  of  the  most  important  departments 
of  international  law.  The  House  is  aware  that  Great  Britain  maintains  doctrines 
in  reference  to  the  maritime  rights  of  belligerents,  which  were  formally  disavowed 
and  denounced,  during  the  war  of  our  Revolution,  by  almost  all  the  leading 
powers  of  Europe,  banded  together  to  resist  the  enforcement  of  them  in  prac- 
tice. On  some  of  the  points  involved  in  the  declarations  of  the  Armed  Neutrality, 
our  own  prize  courts  have  followed,  perhaps  too  implicitly,  those  of  England; 
but  on  others — for  example,  the  rule,  as  it  is  called,  of  '56 — they  have  adhered 
to  the  law,  as  explained  by  that  famous  league.  And  yet,  against  the  concurring 
opinions  of  all  the  rest  of  the  civilized  world,  and  in  spite  of  the  bloody  wars  to 
which  the  exercise  of  her  pretended  rights  has  led,  and  may  yet  lead.  Great  Britain 
maintains  her  principles,  irreconcilable  as  they  are  with  the  practice  of  nations  in 
analogous  cases  on  land,  and  indeed  with  all  modern  ideas  of  civilized  warfare; 
and  even  interposes  her  overruling  influence  to  prevent  any  of  the  minor  states 
of  Europe  from  adopting,  for  their  own  convenience,  provisions  inconsistent  with 
those  principles,  in  treaties  professedly  confined  to  the  parties  making  them. 


188  APPENDIX 

What  declaration  of  a  Congress,  constituted  as  the  one  in  question  would  be, 
can  be  expected  to  have,  by  the  mere  weight  of  its  authority,  more  effect  on 
the  opinions  and  the  conduct  of  mankind,  than  that  of  such  a  formidable  coalition 
as  the  Armed  Neutrality? 

Had  England  not  engrossed  the  empire  of  the  seas  for  about  a  century 
past,  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  doubt  but  that  the  law  of  maritime  captures  would 
have  been  made  to  correspond  more  strictly  with  the  analogies  of  war  on  land, 
and  private  property  been  held  as  sacred  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  It  is 
worthy  of  notice,  that  at  the  Congress  of  Utrecht,  before  her  ascendant  was  estab- 
lished, that  power  was  an  advocate  of  the  rights  of  neutrals.  She  is  now  their 
worst  enemy;  and  her  resistance  presents  an  obstacle,  for  the  present  at  least, 
quite  insuperable  to  any  reform  in  this  particular;  just  as  the  refusal  of  either 
France,  or  Austria,  or  Russia,  &c.,  would  be  fatal  to  the  project  of  the  memorial- 
ists. Such  is  the  preponderance  of  these  powers  in  the  balance  of  Europe,  so 
peculiar  and  so  various  their  interests,  so  many  changes  will  be  necessary  in 
most  of  them  to  bring  their  institutions  into  harmony  with  the  leveling 
*  164  spirit  of  the  age,  and  so  to  make  it  all  *  safe  for  them  to  submit  to  any 
arbiter  but  force,  that  it  were  chimerical  to  expect  their  cooperation  in 
any  plan  to  dispense  with  it  altogether.  When  Henry  IV  conceived  his  project 
of  perpetual  peace,  he  did  not  look  for  the  countenance  or  consent  of  the  then 
predominant  house  of  Austria.  On  the  contrary,  his  first  object  was  to  over- 
come the  resistance  which  he  expected  from  that  quarter.  His  grand  scheme  of 
pacification  was  founded  on  as  vast  a  one  of  preparatory  war  and  revolution.  That 
house  was  to  be  reduced;  its  power  broken;  its  territory  partitioned.  This  was 
evidently  an  indispensable  prerequisite,  and  his  was  too  practical  a  mind  not 
to  perceive  it.  The  Committee  will  add  here,  what  will  be  found  to  illustrate 
another  proposition  advanced  in  this  report,  that  his  project  assumed  a  still 
more  important  alteration  in  the  interests  and  relations  of  mankind.  It  con- 
stituted Europe  on  an  entirely  new  basis.  He  would  have  built  up  a  balance 
of  power  on  something  like  an  equality  of  territory.  He  would  have  dealt  with 
that  continent  as  an  ancient  lawgiver — a  Moses  or  Lycurgus — would  have  dealt 
with  the  soil  of  a  particular  country,  distributing  it  on  agrarian  principles,  in 
order  that  his  new  constitution  of  society  should  have  something  solid  to  rest 
upon  in  the  nature  of  things.  In  this  respect,  too,  as  the  Committee  will  pres- 
ently endeavor  to  show,  he  evinced  a  practical  wisdom  far  above  such  a  dream 
as  that  of  a  revolution  in  the  whole  conduct  of  nations,  to  be  effected  by  a  mere 
declaration  of  abstract  principles  on  paper  or  parchment. 

And  this  leads  to  the  second  objection,  which  is,  that  even  if  the  consent  of 
all  the  great  powers — supposing  their  present  relations  toward  one  another  to 
remain  precisely  as  they  are — could  be  obtained  to  such  an  experiment,  there 
seems  to  your  Committee  to  be  no  reason  for  anticipating  any  good  result  from 
either  of  the  expedients  recommended  by  the  memorialists. 

First:  with  regard  to  a  code  of  international  law.  Nothing,  in  the  opinion 
of  your  Committee,  is  more  fallacious  than  the  idea  that  mere  positive  legislation, 
when  not  preceded  or  accompanied  by  conquest  or  revolution,  has  ever  had  a 


APPENDIX  139 

very  important  agency  in  human  affairs.  This  proposition,  they  are  aware, 
may  seem  paradoxical  at  a  period  when  so  much  is  said  about  written  codes  and 
constitutions;  but  it  is  fully  established  by  experience,  even  were  it  not,  as  it  is, 
suflSciently  clear  o  priori.  The  most  renowned  systems  of  legislation  have  been 
the  slow  work  of  time,  modified  in  some  degree,  and  improved  by  an  enlightened, 
experimental  wisdom,  taking  advantage  of  circumstances,  rather  than  aspiring 
to  control  them.  Even  when  reduced  to  the  form  of  codes,  they  have  done  little 
more,  when  they  have  done  any  good  at  all,  than  record  with  precision, 

*  165   and  clothe  in  solemn  form,  the  opinions,  *  usages  and  manners  of  a  people, 

with  such  limited  modifications  of  them  as  have  been  just  alluded  to. 
The  Committee  will  not  trouble  the  House  with  the  elaborate  development  to 
which  the  importance  of  this  great  and  fundamental  truth  would,  on  a  proper 
occasion,  so  fully  entitle  it;  nor  by  citing  examples  which  it  would  be  easy 
to  multiply,  to  confirm  and  illustrate  it.  But  there  is  one  of  these,  too  often 
mentioned  to  be  overlooked,  too  striking  to  be  slighted,  and  yet  in  general  so 
little  understood  as  to  require  a  statement  of  the  precise  truth  in  regard  to  it: 
they  mean  the  Justinian  collection,  which  is  habitually  cited  as  an  instance 
of  written  law,  properly  so  called,  that  is,  of  law  arbitrarily  prescribed  by  the 
supreme  power  in  the  state;  yet  every  civilian  knows  that  the  great  bulk  and 
body  of  the  corpus  juris  dvilis  is  strictly  common  law,  the  law,  namely,  of 
opinion,  of  interpretation,  and  of  practice.  The  Pandects  are,  from  beginning  to 
end,  nothing  but  a  repository  of  the  wisdom  of  the  great  jurisconsults  of  a  better 
age,  delivered  to  the  public  in  the  shape  of  treatises,  institutes  and  maxims,  or  in 
that  of  consultations  or  opinions  solving  questions  of  practical  jurisprudence. 

But  if  this  be  true  even  of  the  law  of  property  and  contract  (meum  and  tuum), 
it  is  obviously  still  more  applicable  to  public  law  in  both  its  great  branches,  the 
constitutional  and  the  international,  but  especially  the  latter.  As  to  constitu- 
tions, the  experience  of  the  last  half  century  supersedes  the  necessity  of  saying  a 
word  about  their  total  inefiicacy  where  a  people  is  not  ripe  for  them ;  or,  in  other 
words,  where  they  are  arbitrarily  made  for  a  people.  Such  an  instrument  is  a 
mere  deception,  not  worth  the  parchment  on  which  it  is  engrossed.  None  but 
the  most  visionary  minds  can  now  have  any  faith  in  the  mysteries,  once  held  in 
such  reverence,  of  written  forms.  Our  own  government  has  been  absurdly  cited 
as  an  example  of  the  kind.  It  is,  as  the  House  is  aware,  a  remarkable  instance 
of  the  very  reverse.  Its  two  prominent  characteristics,  its  two  vital  principles  as 
a  federal  republic — the  popular  representation  in  one  branch  of  the  legislature, 
the  equality  of  voices  in  the  other — ^are  founded  on  facts,  of  which  the  existence 
is  quite  independent  of  all  constitutions,  and  which  may  be  considered  as  primor- 
dial in  this  country.  The  States  were  as  free,  even  as  republican  before  the 
Revolution,  as  they  are  now;  they  were  at  the  same  time,  independent  com- 
munities, connected,  indeed,  by  many  ties,  but  especially  by  geographical  posi- 
tion and  by  their  common  relation  to  the  mother  country,  but  still 
distinct  and  independent  of  each  other.  It  might  have  been  predicted 
with  confidence,  that  no  government  could  be  formed  which  should  not 

•  166   reconcile,  as  far  as  possible,  both  these  *  facts.    Washington,  for  example, 


140  APPENDIX 

as  is  very  apparent  from  his  correspondence,  as  well  as  from  his  conduct> 
had,  with  that  sound  good  sense  and  large,  comprehensive  and  practical  wisdom  so 
characteristic  of  him,  a  clear  perception  of  this  truth.  The  form  of  the  Legis- 
lative Assembly,  composed  of  two  Houses,  was  the  established  one  of  the  country — 
a  part  of  its  common  law  and  hereditary  liberties,  and  those  of  the  whole 
English  race:  but  how  were  those  Houses  to  be  constituted?  Here  was  a  new 
question,  and  the  only  new  question;  and  yet  the  solution  of  it,  in  the  very 
manner  in  which  it  was  solved,  was  inevitable.  No  one  can  imagine,  that  on 
any  merely  theoretical  principles  the  State  of  Virginia  could  have  been 
brought  then,  or  the  State  of  New  York  could  be  brought  now,  for  the  first  time, 
to  consent  that  her  immense  numerical  superiority  should  be  neutralized  in  the 
equal  vote  of  the  Senate.  So  far,  however,  from  being  the  strange  anomaly  which 
a  foreigner  might  imagine  it,  it  is  the  most  natural  thing  in  the  world;  so  far 
from  being  an  arbitrary  institution  it  is,  so  to  express  it,  a  corollary  flowing  out 
of  our  whole  history;  instead  of  being  the  creature  of  the  constitution,  it  was  its 
necessary,  indispensable  condition.  Nor  is  it  merely  because  it  is  recognized  in 
that  constitution,  and  clothed  by  it  with  a  peculiar  sanctity,  that  it  maintains 
its  place  there;  it  rests  on  more  solid  ground— on  public  opinion.  The  spirit  which 
produced  it  is  still  in  all  its  pristine  vigor;  the  fact,  of  which  it  was  the  expres- 
sion, still  exists;  the  States,  one  and  all  of  them,  have  a  deep  interest  in  main- 
taining their  independence  as  States,  and  would  unite  in  resisting  a  change 
which  would  arm  the  strong  against  the  weak,  to  the  common  ruin.  The  Senate 
is  thus  fully  a  coimterpoise  to  the  other  House;  because,  like  that  House,  it  is 
the  sign  of  a  living  power — the  representative  of  an  actual  interest;  because, 
like  it,  it  is  founded  upon  a  state  of  opinion,  and  of  things  which  cannot  be 
changed  without  war — to  maintain  which,  men  would  be  willing  to  lay  down  their 
lives,  and  to  sacrifice  even  the  government  itself.  It  is  this  that  gives  to  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States  more  weight  and  efficiency  than  belong  to  any 
similar  body,  any  House  of  Lords,  or  Chamber  of  Peers,  in  the  world.  But  this 
unquestionable  truth  at  the  same  time  sufficiently  evinces,  that,  of  all  chimeras, 
it  is  the  wildest  to  expect  to  see  similar  institutions  established,  to  any  practical 
good  purpose,  in  countries  where  there  are  no  facta  that  answer  to  them. 

But  if  codes  or  municipal  and  constitutional  law,  to  be  effective  must  mainly 
form  themselves  in  the  silent  progress  of  events,  we  find  in  international  law  a 
body  of   jurisprudence    which    is,    and   of   necessity    must   be,    exclusively   the 

growth  of  opinion.  There  is  here  no  legislative  power,  no  common  arbiter, 
*  167   nothing  but  an  occasional  convention  or  *  established  usage,  to  give  sanction 

to  its  precepts.  And  yet  whoever,  fresh  from  the  history  of  mankind 
in  more  remote  ages,  shall  open  the  great  work  of  Gwtius,  will  be  struck  with 
the  immense  progress  of  society,  revealed  in  every  page  of  it.  This  justly  cele- 
brated, and  still,  in  its  kind,  imrivaled  collection  of  the  maxims  of  international 
justice,  standing  on  the  very  threshold  of  what  is  properly  called  modem  history, 
ought  to  be  considered,  perhaps,  as  the  grandest  monument  which  human  hands 
have  yet  erected  to  the  influence  of  Christianity.  Before  the  16th  century,  the 
conventional  law  of  nations  hardly  deserves  notice;  treaties  are  but  few  and 


APPENDIX  141 

meagre:  but  Europe  was  a  family  of  nations  bound  together  in  the  unity  of  a 
common  faith,  and  the  law  of  enlightened  reason  and  of  good-will  among  men, 
proclaimed  from  the  pulpit  and  at  the  altar,  established  itself,  gradually  and  by 
tacit  consent,  in  the  practice  of  mankind.  It  is  thus  that  most  of  the  usages 
which  give  such  a  hideous  and  barbarous  aspect  to  war,  even  in  the  most  civilized 
periods  of  antiquity,  have  been  effaced.  Certainly,  some  additional  reforms 
might  be  made  in  international  law,  as,  for  example,  in  the  matter  of  maritime 
captures,  to  which  allusion  has  already  been  had.  These  reforms,  to  the  honor 
of  our  country  be  it  said,  have  been  incessantly  aimed  at  and  perseveringly  pur- 
sued, in  her  negotiations,  from  the  very  first  into  which  she  entered  as  an  inde- 
pendent nation,  down  to  the  present  time.  Your  Committee  trust  that  no  adminis- 
tration will  ever  lose  sight  of  them;  they  are  confident  of  ultimate  success; 
they  have  unlimited  faith  in  the  truth,  justice,  and  wisdom  of  the  maxims  in- 
volved in  these  reforms;  but  it  is  only  from  the  gradual  progress  of  social  im- 
provement that  such  a  consummation  is  to  be  hoped  for.  It  is  not  a  code  or 
collection  of  these  maxims  that  is  wanted:  it  is  the  power  to  enforce  or  the 
spirit  to  practise  them  which  no  code  can  give. 

With  regard  to  the  proposed  international  board  of  arbitration,  the  objections 
of  the  Committee  are  still  stronger.  A  code  digested  and  promulged  as  the  memo- 
rialists desire,  would  do  no  good,  but  it  could  scarcely  do  any  harm.  Not  so 
with  a  tribunal  of  any  sort.  The  probability,  to  be  sure,  is,  that  the  decrees  of 
such  a  one  as  is  here  contemplated  would  be  merely  nugatory;  but,  if  it  had 
any  influence  at  all,  it  might,  in  the  actual  relations  of  the  great  powers,  easily 
be  perverted  to  the  worst  ends.  It  might  be  made  especially  to  impede  the  prog- 
ress of  the  very  improvements  it  would  have  been  instituted  to  promote,  and, 
instead  of  disarming  the  mighty,  become  in  their  hands  an  engine  of  usurpation 
and  tyranny.  He  is  but  superficially  versed  in  the  history  of  nations  who  does 
not  know  that  some  of  the  greatest  revolutions  in  society  have  been  brought 

about  through  the  instrumentality  of  judicial  tribunals.  The  Committee 
*  168   will  cite  but  one  example :  they  refer  to  *  the  gradual  subversion  of  the 

feudal  confederacy  of  France,  by  the  crown  exercising,  as  it  did,  a  para- 
mount influence  over  a  nominal  court  of  peers.  The  authority  of  law,  once 
established  and  acknowledged  among  men,  is  second  only  to  that  of  religion. 
Judges  do  much  more  than  pronounce  and  enforce  judgment  in  particular  cases; 
they  shape  the  opinions  of  mankind  in  analogous  ones;  and  those  opinions,  as 
we  have  seen,  are  the  basis  of  all  government  and  legislation. 

It  will  immediately  occur  to  the  House,  that  the  only  republic  in  the  world 
should  be  very  careful  not  to  commit  its  destinies,  in  any  serious  degree,  to  insti- 
tutions which  might  and  would  be  controlled  by  influences  hostile  to  its  prin- 
ciples; and,  the  more  especially,  as  the  natural  tendency  of  things  is  more 
favorable  to  those  principles  than  any  policy  shaped  or  controlled  by  the  existing 
governments  of  Europe  can  possibly  be  expected  to  prove.  In  the  nature  of 
things,  every  organ,  however  constituted,  of  such  governments,  must  speak  the 
language  of  what  is  called  "resistance"  to  the  spirit  of  the  age;  and  if  any 
thing  could  enable  them  to  resist  that  spirit,  it  would  be  a  permanent  Congress 


142  APPENDIX 

of  Laybach  or  Verona,  laying  down  the  law  of  war  and  peace  for  all  nations.  This 
was,  indeed,  the  very  scheme  of  the  Holy  Alliance,  to  which  this  country  wa< 
formally  invited  to  accede. 

The  example  of  the  Amphictyonic  Council  of  Greece,  which  has  been  cited 
with  confidence  by  the  petitioners,  is,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Committee,  as  un- 
favorable  to  their  purpose  as  any  that  could  be  selected  from  the  records  of 
the  past.  Without  going  into  a  critical  examination  of  its  history,  for  which 
this  is  not  a  suitable  occasion,  it  is  sufficient  to  refer  to  indisputable  general 
results,  to  what  every  one  who  will  cast  his  eye,  however  carelessly,  over  the 
annals  of  those  commonwealths,  will  at  once  perceive — that  it  had  no  effect  what- 
ever in  healing  their  fatal  dissensions;  that  so  long  as  there  was  any  thing 
like  a  balance  of  power  among  the  principal  states,  they  continued  to  make  war 
upon  each  other,  without  the  least  regard  to  the  imaginary  jurisdiction  of  that 
assembly;  that,  although  by  its  constitution  the  twelve  peoples  composing 
it  had  each  an  equal  voice  in  it,  whatever  might  be  their  inequality  of  weight 
and  importance,  yet  its  decisions  were  continually  and  openly  swayed  by  the 
influence  of  the  power  or  powers  in  the  ascendant  for  the  time  being;  and  finally, 
that  it  was  by  availing  himself  of  his  absolute  control  over  it,  and  by  taking 
advantage  of  a  favorable  juncture  in  affairs  brought  about  by  its  policy,  that 
Philip  of  Macedon  found  a  plausible  pretext,  and  a  show  of  legitimate  authority, 
to  sanctify  the  machinations  which  he  had  been  long  contriving,  and  the  war 

which  he  ultimately  waged  with  success  against  the  liberties  of  Greece. 
•  169       •  Every  other  mere  confederation,  both  in  ancient  and  modern  times, 

except  under  circumstances  so  peculiar  as  to  make  them  unfit  to  be  con- 
Bidered  as  precedents,  has  been  attended  with  the  same  results.  Either  the  lead- 
ing members  of  them,  at  the  head  of  standing,  systematic  parties,  have  been 
at  perpetual  war  with  each  other,  or  the  overruling  ascendant  of  some  one  of 
them  has  enabled  it  to  invade  the  rights  of  all  the  rest,  in  every  form  of  violence 
and  artifice.  The  late  German  empire,  for  example,  affords  us  instances  of  both 
these  tendencies.  Some  of  the  longest  and  most  desolating  wars  that  have 
scourged  Europe  have  grown  out  of  the  conflicting  interests  of  the  members  of 
that  league  of  peace,  and  had  for  their  avowed  object  the  adjustment  of  those 
interests  according  to  the  true  theory  of  its  public  law.  This  was  as  much 
the  case  after  as  before  the  treaty  of  Westphalia,  although  one  capital  object 
of  that  memorable  negotiation  was  to  reform  the  constitution  or  the  administra- 
tion of  the  Imperial  Chamber  and  the  Aulic  Council — in  which  jurisdiction  in 
federal  and  feudal  causes  had  been  vested,  without  any  effect,  however,  in  decid- 
ing  them  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  weaker  party.  Neither  ought  it  to  be  for- 
gotten, that  by  that  treaty  a  majority  of  suffrages  in  the  diet  was  no  longer 
to  give  the  law  in  any  matters  that  related  to  religion,  or  in  which  the  two 
great  parties,  as  such,  should  vote  differently,  or,  in  general,  in  any  case  wherein 
all  the  states  could  not  be  considered  as  forming  a  single  consolidated  nation. 
In  all  such  cases,  the  questions  submitted  to  them  were  to  be  treated  as  those 
arising  between  foreign  nations,  and  to  be  arranged  by  compromise,  with  no  appeal 
but  to  the  sword.    So  difficult  is  it  to  accomplish  what  the  memorialists  propose,— 


APPENDIX  148 

the  peaceful  decision  of  controversies  between  states  whose  interests  are  ma- 
terially (liflferent, — that  even  where  tribunals  have  been  instituted  for  that 
purpose,  the  abuses  to  which  they  have  been  made  to  lend  their  authority  have 
seldom  failed,  in  the  end,  to  aggravate  and  multiply  the  very  evils  they  were 
intended  to  prevent.  Experience  shows,  that  of  all  wars,  the  most  obstinate 
and  terrible  are  those  which  grow  out  of  such  abuses.  They  partake  of  the 
nature  of  revolution  and  civil  war;  the  color  of  authority  on  the  one  side, 
the  sense  of  injustice  on  the  other,  inflame  the  usual  bitterness  of  hostility;  and 
battles  are  more  sanguinary,  and  victory  less  merciful,  where  the  contest  is 
waged  by  parties  standing  towards  each  other  in  the  supposed  relation  of  rebel 
and  tyrant.  Such  institutions,  therefore,  unless  where  the  circumstances  of  a 
country  are  very  peculiar,  have  inevitably  one  of  two  effects:  they  either 
strengthen  the  hands  of  the  oppressor,  or  they  lead  to  dreadful  and 
•  170  desolating  wars  to  overthrow  him;  sometimes,  as  in  'the  case  of  the  Ger- 
manic empire,  and  the  house  of  Austria  in  the  seventeenth  century,  to  both. 

Upon  the  whole,  your  Committee  are  of  opinion  that  time  is  the  best  reformer 
in  such  things,  and  that  any  attempt  to  anticipate  the  natural  progress  of  events, 
by  institutions  arbitrarily  adopted,  would  either  be  vain,  or  something  worse 
than  vain.  They  have  endeavored  to  show  that  the  cause  of  peace  is  visibly 
gaining  ground;  that  mankind  are  already  become,  and  will  daily  become  more 
and  more  indisposed  to  sacrifice  their  comforts  and  their  business  to  the 
ambition  of  governments;  nay,  that  governments  themselves,  partaking  of  the 
spirit  of  the  times,  or  dreading  its  effects,  avoid,  as  much  as  possible,  those 
ruinous  contests  by  which  nations  are  rendered  discontented,  and  rulers  more 
dependent  on  them,  just  when  suffering  and  poverty  most  dispose  them  to  revolt 
Instead  of  Congresses  to  put  an  end  to  war,  generally  on  the  foot  of  the  statu 
quo  ante  helium,  there  are  Congresses  to  prevent  a  rupture,  and  piles  of  protocols 
attest  that  power,  as  was  said  of  the  Spartans  after  a  memorable  defeat,  has 
lost  much  of  its  insolent  and  peremptory  brevity  of  speech.  The  truth  is,  that 
every  war  hereafter  will,  by  the  social  disorders  that  are  likely  to  accompany 
or  to  follow  such  an  event,  throw  additional  obstacles  in  the  way  of  future  ones. 
The  sword  will  thus  prove  the  surest  guaranty  of  peace. 

Your  Committee,  therefore,  do  not  think  the  establishment  of  a  permanent 
international  tribunal,  under  the  present  circumstances  of  the  world,  at  all 
desirable;  but  they  heartily  concur  with  the  memorialists  in  recommending  a 
reference  to  a  third  power  of  all  such  controversies  as  can  safely  be  confided  to 
any  tribunal  unknown  to  the  constitution  of  our  own  country.  Such  a  practice 
will  be  followed  by  other  powers,  already  inclined,  as  we  have  seen,  to  avoid 
war,  and  will  soon  grow  up  into  the  customary  law  of  civilized  nations.  They 
conclude,  therefore,  by  recommending  to  the  memorialists  to  persevere  in  exert- 
ing whatever  influence  they  may  possess  over  public  opinion,  to  dispose  it  habitu- 
ally to  the  accommodation  of  national  differences  without  bloodshed;  and  to  the 
House,  the  adoption  of  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  be  discharged  from  the  further  consideration 
of  the  subject  referred  to  them. 


144  APPENDIX 


No.  9. 

•  171       •  Beoond  Petition  of  the  American  Peace  Society  to  Congre$$. 

To  the  Honorable  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of 

America,  in  Congress  assembled: 

The  undersigned.  President  and  Executive  Committee  of  the  American  Peace 
Society,  by  the  authority  and  in  behalf  of  that  Society,  present  the  following 
memorial  and  petition: 

Believing  that  the  custom  of  war  between  Christian  nations  is  barbarous 
and  unnecessary,  and,  to  quote  the  language  of  the  illustrious  Jefferson,  "  that 
war  is  an  instrument  entirely  inefficient  toward  redressing  wrong,  and  that  it 
multiplies  instead  of  indemnifying  losses;  "  and  being  fully  assured,  that  the 
time  has  at  length  come,  when  a  more  cheap,  humane,  equitable  and  Christian 
method  of  settling  international  contests  may  be  obtained,  we  petition  your 
honorable  bodies  to  take  such  means  as  may  appear  to  your  wisdom  best  adapted 
to  this  desirable  end. 

The  plan  which  your  petitioners  would  venture  to  suggest,  as  best  adapted  to 
bring  about  so  desirable  a  consummation,  is  simple  and  easy  to  be  accom- 
plished. It  consists  of  two  distinct  parts,  either  of  which  may  be  accomplished 
without  the  other;  but  their  practicability  and  utility  would  be  promoted  by  the 
union  of  both. 

1.  A  Congress  of  Ambassadors  representing  such  of  the  governments  of  Chris- 
tendom as  shall  unite  in  the  measure,  for  the  purpose  of  digesting  a  code  of 
international  law,  to  be  adopted  by  the  universal  consent  of  the  Congress,  voting 
by  nations,  and  binding  only  on  the  governments  that  shall  freely  adopt  it. 
When  this  work  is  carried  as  far  as  the  circumstances  of  the  times  will  permit, 
the  Congress  may  be  dissolved,  or  adjourned  sine  die,  to  be  reassembled  when 
circumstances  favorable  to  a  further  amelioration  of  the  condition  of  man  may 
be  developed. 

2.  An  international  tribunal,  consisting  of  eminent  civilians,  appointed  by 
the  government  of  each  of  the  concurring  powers,  to  hold  their  offices  during 
good  behaviour,  who  shall  judge  all  cases  brought  before  them  by  the  mutual 
consent  of  any  two  or  more  nations,  to  hold  their  sessions  in  any  of  the  countries 
of  the  high  contracting  parties,  except  in  the  territory  of  either  of  the  parties 
appealing  to  them  for  judgment,  who  shall  base  their  decisions  on  the  abovemen- 

tioned  code  of  laws,  so  far  as  it  is  settled,  and  when  that  fails,  on  the  prin- 
•172    ciples  of  "equity;   such  judgments  to  be  enforced  only  by  the  power  of 

public  opinion,  and  such  other  peaceful  means  as  the  nations  shall  adopt 
by  their  ambassadors  in  Congress  assembled. 

Your  petitioners  are  aware,  that  the  progress  of  such  a  Congress  would  be 
alow,  but  the  results  would  be  the  more  permanent  and  valuable.  It  would 
begin   by  adopting  those  principles  which   are  almost  self-evident,  and  would 


APPENDIX  145 

advance  to  those  which  are  more  doubtful  and  complicated.  Experience  has 
shown  on  moral  subjects,  no  less  than  in  the  exact  sciences,  that  when  first 
principles  have  been  firmly  established,  the  most  complicated  propositions  may 
be  demonstrated,  and  also  when  people  once  heartily  begin  to  promote  a  good 
work,  that  a  spirit  of  mutual  concession  is  generated,  which  will  make  crooked 
things  straight,  remove  mountains  of  difficulty,  and  fill  up  intervening  valleys; — 
which  truth  our  own  country,  both  under  the  old  confederation  and  the  new 
constitution,  has  abundantly  exemplified. 

It  is  not  long  since  the  world  was  ruled  altogether  by  the  sword,  but  now, 
"  opinion  is  the  queen  of  the  world,"  *  and  begins  to  extend  her  legitimate  sway 
over  the  nations  of  the  earth.  Her  power  will  increase  as  civilization  extends, 
and  the  march  of  civilization  is  commensurate  with  the  duration  of  peace  and 
the  extent  of  peace  principles.  It  is  the  gospel  of  peace  which  will  "rebuke 
strong  nations  afar  off,"  and  compel  them  by  the  power  of  public  opinion  to  "  beat 
their  swords  into  ploughshares,  and  their  spears  into  pruning-hooks."  t 

We  live  in  an  age  when  the  bare  attempt  to  do  that  which  ought  to  be  done, 
insures  success.  The  speed,  with  which  great  enterprises  are  carried  to  their 
successful  consummation,  is  no  more  to  be  measured  by  the  creeping  pace  of 
public  opinion  in  by-gone  ages,  than  the  velocity  of  a  railroad  car  is  to  be 
judged  by  the  slow  movements  of  the  cumbersome  wains  of  antiquity. 

If  ancient  attempts  to  preserve  peace  by  an  international  tribunal,  were  only 
partially  successful,  that  ought  not  to  discourage  us  from  making  similar  at- 
tempts on  a  larger  scale,  and  in  a  more  mature  state  of  society,  any  more  than 
the  entire  failure,  or  only  partial  success,  of  former  attempts  at  a  steam-boat, 
ought  to  have  discouraged  Fulton.  The  partial  success  of  the  Old  Confederation, 
formed  for  the  government  of  the  Union  in  1775,  in  a  time  of  war,  excitement, 
and  inexperience  in  the  art  of  self-government,  did  not  discourage  the  framers  of 
the  New  Constitution  in  1787;  but  it  must  be  confessed,  that  the  Old  Con- 
*  173  federation  was  the  parent  of  the  New  Constitution,  and  had  not  *  that 
existed,  this  could  never  have  been  born.  The  framers  of  the  New  Con- 
stitution profited  by  the  errors  of  their  predecessors,  and  produced  an  institution 
which  has  astonished  and  delighted  the  world.  All  improvement  is,  in  its  very 
nature,  progressive.  Let  the  present  generation  form  a  confederation  of  Christian 
nations  for  desirable  purposes, — the  next  generation  will  produce  a  constitution 
which,  while  it  will  leave  every  nation  perfectly  independent  as  to  all  internal 
affairs  and  forms  of  government,  will  bind  all  civilized  nations  in  one  bond  of 
peace  and  good-will. 

It  is  no  good  reason  why  there  should  be  no  Congress  of  Nations,  because 
it  cannot  do  every  thing.  Nor  will  the  refusal  of  one  or  even  many  nations 
to  concur,  entirely  defeat  our  enterprise.  If  no  other  than  Great  Britain,  France 
and  the  United  States  should  agree  on  any  article  of  international  law,  the 
principle,  thus  settled  by  the  three  chief  commercial  powers  in  the  world,  would 
soon  become  the  law  of  nations,  by  the  bare  power  and  impulse  of  moral  truth. 
For  instance,  should  these  three  powers  repudiate  the  practice  of  privateering, 

*  John  Q.  Adams's  Phi  Beta  Eappa  Address.  t  Micah  4 :  S. 


146  APPENDIX 

the  relinquishment  of  that  practice  would  forthwith  be  a  blessing  to  the  high 
contracting  parties,  and  this  relic  of  barbarism  would  soon  be  relinquished  by 
every  Christian  nation. 

As  the  contemplated  Congn^ss  would  have  nothing  to  do,  and  could  have 
nothing  to  do,  with  the  internal  affairs  of  nations,  it  could  be  no  more  dangerous 
to  our  free  institutions  than  a  treaty  of  peace  and  commerce,  entered  into  by  \u 
with  the  ambassador  of  a  monarchical  government.  Even  a  general  treaty  of 
peace,  entered  into  by  all  the  powers  of  Christendom,  especially  if  we  should 
not  be  bound  by  any  article  of  such  a  treaty,  unless  we  should  volun- 
tarily and  formally  assent  to  it,  could  not  endanger  our  free  institutions. 
Despotic  institutions  would  be  more  endangered  by  a  Congress  of  Nations,  than 
our  republican  principles.  It  was  well  observed  in  the  Report  of  the  Committee  of 
Foreign  Relations  on  this  subject,  presented  to  Congress  at  its  last  session, 
"  War  has  ever  been  the  fruitful  source  of  arbitrary  power.  They  are,  to  a  cer- 
tain degree,  inseparable."  By  preventing  war,  then,  we  promote  free  institu- 
tions in  other  countries,  and  secure  them  in  our  own. 

If  a  good  thing  be  liable  to  abuse,  we  should  not  deem  that  a  sufficient 
argument  against  its  adoption;  othen^'ise  we  must  throw  away  all  the  improve- 
ments of  society,  both  physical  and  moral.  The  constantly  advancing  improve- 
ments in  the  world  are  a  sure  guaranty,  that  when  a  thing  is  good  in  itself, 
the  good  will  gain  an  increasing  preponderance,  which  will  finally  reduce  the 
evil  to  the  "  small  dust  of  the  balance."  If  bodies  armed  with  physical 
•  174  force  are  dangerous,  it  does  not  follow  *  that  similar  bodies,  armed  only 
with  moral  power,  will  be  dangerous  also.  Bodies  so  constituted  that 
there  is  "  no  appeal  from  them  but  to  the  sword,"  *  may  be  dangerous,  while 
those  that  have  no  appeal  but  to  public  opinion  may  be,  at  least,  harmless.  If 
the  fact,  that  civil  war  is  more  bitter  than  foreign,  and  that  the  "  battles  are 
more  sanguinary,  and  victory  less  merciful,"  *  which  grow  out  of  the  organization 
of  society,  be  of  sufficient  weight  to  discourage  such  organizations,  then  society 
must  revert  to  its  first  elements,  and  all  government  but  that  of  brute  force  be 
superseded.  Mankind  have  so  long  been  used  to  consider  the  sword  as  the 
only  legitimate  sceptre,  by  which  the  world  should  or  could  be  governed,  they 
forget  that  there  is  any  power  in  enlightened  public  opinion. 

"  A  reference  to  a  third  power  of  all  such  controversies  as  could  be  safely 
confided  to  any  tribunal  unknown  to  the  constitution  of  our  country,"  has  been 
already  recommended  by  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations.  The  Executive  of 
the  country  has  already  shown  its  concurrence  by  frequently  submitting  disputes 
between  the  United  States  and  other  nations  to  the  crowned  heads  of  Europe. 
This  course  has  received  the  decided  approbation  of  our  own  country,  and  elicited 
the  admiration  of  the  whole  Christian  and  civilized  world.  The  only  questions, 
then,  which  remain,  are  these: 

1.  Whether  this  course  should  continue  to  be  an  occasional  measure,  or  be- 
come a  systematic  and  general  ruleT 

2.  Whether  the  judges,  or  umpires,  in  these  cases  are  to  act  by  the  immediate 

*  Mr.  Legare's  Report  oo  thia  subject  to  the  last  aeesion  of  Congress. 


APPENDIX  147 

impression  of  truth  or  error  on  their  minds,  or  be  governed  in  their  decisions  by 
known  and  acknowledged  principles  and  laws,  recognized  and  adopted  by  the 
parties  in  controversy? 

3.  Whether  we  should  continue  to  leave  our  disputes  to  the  monarchs  of  Europe, 
singly  and  individually,  or  to  a  body  of  jurists,  selected  from  the  different  states 
composing  the  proposed  confederation,  already  distinguished  for  their  legal  talents 
and  integrity. 

On  these  three  topics,  your  petitioners  would  briefly  remark: 

1.  Though  an  occasional  reference  to  a  third  power  is  good,  a  settled  and  regu- 
lated practice  is  far  better,  and  much  more  likely  to  result  in  the  peace  and  hap- 
piness of  mankind.  Were  there  a  regular  and  acknowledged  tribunal,  always 
ready  to  judge  the  cases  brought  before  it,  governments  would  be  compelled,  by 
their  own  constituents,  and  by  the  opinion  of  the  world,  to  resort  to  it,  rather 
than  to  the  expensive,  barbarous,  and  uncertain  decision  of  the  sword.     If  the 

antagonist  party  should  refuse  to  comply,  he  would  find  but  little  sympathy 
•  175   for  *  the  disasters  which  might  befall  him  in  the  course  of  the  war,  and 
be  glad  to  make  peace  by  the  intervention  of  such  a  tribunal. 

2.  Such  is  the  infirmity  of  human  nature,  such  its  liability  to  be  influenced 
by  selfish  motives,  that  every  possible  guard  should  be  provided  against  errors 
of  judgment  arising  from  such  causes.  Now,  a  code  of  international  laws, 
settled  upon  abstract  principles,  before  the  occurrence  of  any  case  to  warp  the 
judgment  of  the  framers  of  such  laws,  adopted  by  the  compact  and  agreement  of 
the  nations  generally,  especially,  if  the  contending  nations  should  happen  to  be 
parties  to  the  compact,  would  add  greatly  to  the  probability  of  a  just  decision 
by  the  proposed  Court  of  Nations. 

3.  It  appears  almost  an  anomaly  that  the  United  States,  "  the  only  republic  in 
the  world,"  *  should  continue  to  leave  its  disputes  with  other  powers  to  monarchs, 
who  are  busy  with  their  own  affairs,  and  who  may  have  diflBculties  of  their  own 
to  be  settled  by  the  mediation  of  our  opponent.  Such  was  the  fact  in  the  case 
of  our  north-east  boundary  question.  Ought  we  not  to  prefer  a  tribunal  com- 
posed of  men  free  from  the  cares  of  state,  the  intrigues  of  courts,  and 
controversies  of  their  own  with  other  nations;  men  with  an  established  reputa- 
tion, knowing  that  the  peaceful  execution  of  their  sentence  depends  not  only 
on  the  correctness  of  their  judgment,  but  on  their  power  to  make  it  appear 
just  to  the  world;  that  on  their  ability  to  make  and  vindicate  a  correct  decision, 
depends  their  present  and  future  reputation?  The  Governor  of  the  State  of 
Maine  told  one  of  your  petitioners,  that  he  is  morally  certain,  that  if  the 
north-east  boundary  question  had  been  left  to  such  a  tribunal  as  we  contem- 
plate, the  case  would  long  ago  have  been  settled  to  the  entire  satisfaction  of 
this  coimtry. 

If  "judges  do  more  than  pronounce  and  enforce  judgment  in  particular 
cases,"  if  "  those  opinions  are  the  basis  of  all  government  and  legislation,"  as  is 
conceded  by  the  author  of  the  very  able  report  already  alluded  to,  how  very 
superior  must  be  a  bench  of  able  jurists,  of  acknowledged  talents  and  integrity, 

*  Mr.  Legare'B  Report. 


148     ^  APPENDIX 

to  individual  umpires,  chosen  rather  for  their  station  than  their  talents,  and 
liable  to  have  their  judgment  warped  by  a  thousand  extraneous  circumstances. 

Recent  events  afford  a  good  opportunity  of  showing  the  excellency  of  the 
plan  proposed  by  your  petitioners.  France  claims  from  Mexico  an  indemnity  of 
about  $700,000.  Mexico  denies  the  justice  of  the  claim,  and  refuses  to  pay. 
France  blockades  her  ports,  and  shuts  out  all  other  nations  from  their  accus- 
tomed commerce.  England  complains  of  the  blockade  as  an  infringement 
*  176  on  her  rights,  and  argues  that  *  France  has  no  right  thus  to  injure  Mexico, 
and  through  her,  all  other  commercial  powers,  until  she  has  inflicted  a 
still  greater  injury  on  Mexico,  by  seizing  her  commerce,  and  declaring  war. 
Then,  it  is  contended,  France  would  have  a  right  to  capture  neutral  vessels 
trading  to  Mexican  ports.  Now,  were  there  a  Court  of  Nations,  France  and 
Mexico  would  have  submitted  the  case  to  it,  rather  than  experience  so  great 
inconvenience  for  so  small  a  sum;  and  had  there  been  a  code  of  international 
laws,  the  right  of  France  to  blockade,  or  of  neutral  nations  to  trade  to,  the 
ports  of  Mexico,  would  have  been  clearly  defined.  For  want  of  these,  war  may 
commence  between  France  and  Mexico,  and  extend  to  Great  Britain  and  all  the 
commercial  world. 

The  General  Court  of  Massachusetts,  one  of  the  most  numerous  and  enlight- 
ened legislative  bodies  in  the  world,  has  had  this  subject  under  consideration  for 
five  years  past.  At  first,  the  plan  was  treated  as  the  phantasy  of  a  benevolent 
enthusiast.  Discussion  threw  light  upon  it.  Resolves  recommending  a  Congress 
of  Nations  to  the  attention  of  our  National  Executive,  and  "  to  the  Legislatures 
of  the  several  States,  inviting  their  expression  of  sentiment  and  cooperation  in 
favor  of  the  end  in  view,"  passed  the  Senate  of  that  State  in  the  year  1837,  by  a 
majority  of  nearly  six  to  one.  Last  year,  similar  resolves  passed  both  branches 
of  the  Legislature  of  that  State,  with  only  two  dissenting  voices.  The  American 
Peace  Society  waited  for  that  joyful  consummation,  ere  they  ventured  to  bring 
this  subject  before  the  collected  wisdom  of  the  nation.  But  the  New  York  Peace 
Society  has  anticipated  us,  and  the  subject  has  received  from  your  honorable 
bodies  a  more  kind  and  respectful  attention  than  they  had  expected  on  its  first 
presentation.  When  the  Congress  of  the  Union  shall  have  given  the  subject  as 
continued  and  mature  deliberation  as  the  General  Court  of  Massachusetts,  prob- 
ably the  same  results  will  follow. 

Were  our  contemplated  plan  to  involve  great  expense,  we  might,  perhaps, 
pause  before  we  presented  it  to  the  consideration  of  Congress^  but  the  share 
of  expense,  falling  on  this  country,  would  not  maintain  a  single  gun-boat.  One 
ship  of  the  line  would  cost  more  than  a  Congress  and  Court  of  Nations  for  the 
whole  civilized  world.  We  should  soon  be  a  thousand  times  repaid  by  the 
money  saved  in  the  preparation  for  war;  and  our  agriculturists,  merchants,  manu- 
facturers and  fishermen  would  reap  golden  harvests  from  the  increasing  wealth 
of  their  customers. 

If  this  enterprise  would  endanger  our  free  institutions,  we  ought  to  pause 
and  reflect  before  we  run  the  hazard  even  for  so  great  a  good;  but  we  are 
persuaded,  that  the  long-continued  peace,  which  must  be  the  consequence  of 


APPENDIX 


149 


•  177  the  establishment  of  an  international  tribunal,  *  would  not  only  save  our 
republic  from  its  greatest  danger,  but,  under  God,  it  would  be  the  means 
of  extending  the  principles  of  Christianity  and  freedom  all  over  the  world. 

The  bare  attempt,  even  if  it  failed,  would  be  glorious.  It  would  show  to 
the  world  our  desire  for  the  peace  and  happiness  of  mankind.  But  the  attempt 
would  not  fail,  if  it  were  persevered  in,  so  as  to  be  distinctly  seen  and  under- 
stood by  the  people  of  Europe.  If  only  France  and  Great  Britain  joined  us 
at  first,  success  would  be  certain.  The  work  has  already  begun  in  England. 
France  will  follow.  God  has  destined  this  country  to  take  the  lead  in  this  great 
enterprise.     Let  us  not  be  unmindful  of  our  high  destiny. 

From  the  abovementioned  considerations,  and  many  more  which  could  be  urged, 
your  petitioners  humbly  pray,  that  your  honorable  bodies  would  take  such  action 
in  the  premises,  as,  after  mature  deliberation,  shall  appear  best  adapted  to  the 
end  proposed. 

WILLIAM  LADD,  President. 

J.  P.  Blanchabd,        John  Owkn, 


H.  Wabe,  Jb., 
Amasa  Walkeb, 
Geo.  C.  Beckwith, 
L.  T.  Stoddabo, 


James   K.   Whipple, 
Edwabd  Notes, 
How  ABO  Malcom, 


Executive 
Committee. 


No.  10. 


Second  Petition  of  the  New  York  Peace  Society. 

To  the  honorable,  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States 

of  America,  in  Congress  assembled  on  the  first  Monday  in  December,  1838: — 

The  \mdersigned,  members  of  the  New  York  Peace  Society,  and  others  friendly 

to  the  peace  cause,  respectfully  present  the  following  Petition  and  Memorial: 

Your  petitioners  pray  your  honorable  body  to  interpose  your  good  offices  as 

mediator  between  France  and  Mexico,  thereby  preventing,  if  possible,  the  eflFusion 

of  human  blood,  and  the  great  and  innumerable  evils  of  war,  which,  without  some 

interposition  of  the  kind,  are  almost  sure  to  be  realized  from  the  present  relative 

position  of  those  nations. 

"  Two  nations,"  says  Vattel,  in  his  Law  of  Nations,  "  though  equally 
*  178  weary  of  war,  often  continue  it  merely  from  the  fear  of  making  the  *  first 
advances  to  an  accommodation,  as  these  might  be  imputed  to  weakness;  or, 
they  persist  in  it  from  animosity,  and  against  their  real  interests.  Then,  common 
friends  effectually  interpose,  offering  themselves  for  mediators.  And  there  can- 
not be  a  more  beneficent  office,  than  that  of  reconciling  two  nptions  at  war,  and 
thus  putting  a  stop  to  the  effusion  of  human  blood.  This  is  an  indispensable 
duty  to  those  who  are  possessed  of  the  means  of  succeeding  in  it."     Now,  the 


150  APPENDIX 

present  attitude  assumed  by  France  and  Mexico  in  relation  to  each  other,  presents 
a  fair  case  for  interposition  of  the  kind.  It  is  hardly  to  be  expected,  that,  in 
the  present  stage  of  the  difficulty  between  those  powers,  either  party  will  make 
advances  towards  reconciliation.  Mediation,  therefore,  is  imperatively  demanded 
in  this  instance,  by  the  interests  of  human  nature.  And  who  so  suitable  for 
this  office  in  the  case  before  us,  as  the  government  of  the  United  States  T — a 
country  that  has  not  only  herself  repeatedly  received  the  benefit  of  the  friendly 
interposition  of  others  in  a  similar  way,  but  that,  on  the  one  hand,  sees  her 
ancient  ally,  and,  on  the  other,  a  sister  republic  of  our  own  hemisphere,  arrayed 
in  fearful  hostility  against  each  other. 

Your  petitioners  further  pray  your  honorable  body  to  act  as  mediator  in  gen- 
eral, in  all  cases  of  international  difficulty  that  now  exist  between  other  nations, 
or  that  may  hereafter  occur,  while  the  relations  of  nations  remain  in  their  pres- 
ent state,  and  no  system  of  international  arbitration  shall  be  established. 

The  propriety,  the  praiseworthiness,  the  necessity,  and  the  duty,  of  inter- 
national mediation  in  general,  are  admitted  on  all  hands.  "A  nation  or  sov- 
ereign," says  Vattel,  "  ought  to  promote  peace  as  much  as  lies  within  their 
power;  to  dissuade  others  from  breaking  it  without  necessity;  to  exhort  them  to 
a  love  of  justice,  equity,  and  the  public  tranquillity,  and  to  a  love  of  peace.  It 
is  one  of  the  best  offices  we  can  perform  to  nations,  and  to  the  whole  universe. 
What  a  glorious  and  amiable  appellation  is  that  of  peace-maker !  The  most  glori- 
ous period  of  Augustus's  life  was,  when  he  shut  the  temple  of  Janus,  adjusted 
the  disputes  of  kings  and  nations,  and  gave  peace  to  the  universe."  Now,  above 
all  others,  it  is  incumbent  on  these  United  States  to  be  always  ready  to  promote 
the  welfare  of  nations.  Do  not  we  profess,  more  emphatically  than  others,  the 
desire  to  see  all  nations  in  the  enjoyment  of  freedom,  and  every  imaginable 
blessing?  High  time,  indeed,  then,  is  it,  that  we  ceased  to  look  with  apparent 
unconcern  on  the  sang^uinary  conflicts  of  nations,  while  monarchical  governments 
step  in  between  the  contending  parties,  as  ministers  of  mercy  and  peace. 

Your  petitioners  still  further  pray  your  honorable  body,  to  adopt  for 
*  179  •  this  government  the  principle  of  international  arbitration,  in  reference  to 
all  cases  of  dispute  between  the  United  States  and  other  powers,  which 
cannot  be  amicably  adjusted  by  the  parties  themselves.  The  adoption  of  this  prin- 
ciple by  your  honorable  body  would  follow  as  a  legitimate  consequence,  from 
the  character  which  you  would  assume  in  acting  as  peace-maker  among  the 
nations.  And,  moreover,  as  the  propriety  of  this  principle  has  been  repeatedly 
recognized  by  this  government,  by  the  actual  reference  of  disputes  in  various 
instances,  this  furnishes  an  additional  reason  why  your  honorable  body  should 
make  it  a  fixed  rule  of  action. 

Your  memorialists  feel  that  a  few  words  are  requisite  in  relation  to  this  point; 
for,  though  arbitration  is  occasionally  resorted  to  by  nations,  war  as  a  custom 
nevertheless  continues. 

First,  then,  it  is  observable,  that  war  pays  no  regard  to  the  merits  of  a  case. 
Its  rule  is  might,  not  right.  But  arbitration  does  consider  those  merits.  Again; 
the  stronger  party  being  more  likely  than  the  weaker  to  be  the  aggressor,  a  resort 


APPENDIX  151 

to  war  in  the  case  renders  it  probable  that  the  injured  party  will  receive  addi- 
tional injury,  instead  of  obtaining  redress;  whereas,  by  arbitration,  that  party 
would  in  all  probability  obtain  redress.  In  cases  where  two  parties  are  nearly 
equal  in  strength,  by  resorting  to  war,  they  generally  leave  oflf  where  they  begin, 
nothing  being  decided,  and  both  parties  being  sadly  injured.  Arbitration  in  such 
cases,  also,  would  answer  a  better  purpose  in  both  respects.  And  in  cases 
where  the  stronger  party  is  the  injured  one,  although  by  a  resort  to  war,  redress 
is  generally  obtained,  how  hard  the  way  of  obtaining  it!  Arbitration  would 
afford  it  in  an  easier  way.  In  every  case,  then,  the  ends  of  justice  are  better 
subserved  by  arbitration  than  by  war,  and  all  the  evils  of  war  are  prevented 
besides.  Furthermore;  war  is  an  infringement  of  the  independence  of  nations. 
Surely  it  is  such  an  infringement,  for  one  nation  to  dictate  to  another,  and  to 
attempt  to  enforce  its  dictation,  as  is  always  done  by  one  of  the  parties  in  war. 
But  arbitration  respects  national  sovereignty.  Here  is  no  dictation,  no  coercion, 
nothing  but  friendly  counsel.  Once  more;  by  resorting  to  war,  nations  violate 
one  of  the  plainest  dictates  of  reason,  viz.,  that  parties  should  not  be  judges 
in  their  own  cases,  which  they  always  assume  to  be  in  war.  Arbitration  respects 
this  dictate,  by  providing  a  disinterested  party  as  a  judge.  Then  again;  the 
custom  of  war  affords  the  strong  an  opportunity  to  oppress  the  weak,  and  the 
ambitious  to  pursue  their  schemes  of  conquest  and  aggrandizement.  Arbitration 
is  a  check  to  oppression  and  ambition,  and  the  best  security  of  the  defenceless. 
And  again;  the  custom  of  war,  by  which  nations  take  their  position  on 
*  180  what  they  denominate  the  point  of  honor,  refusing  *  to  make  the  proper 
concessions  and  overtures  for  the  preservation  of  peace,  and  sacrificing 
justice  itself  to  resentment  and  pride,  is  one  vast  system  of  duelling.  The  prin- 
ciple of  international  arbitration  is  the  principle  of  order  and  peace  on  a 
scale  of  equal  magnitude.  In  short,  every  reason  that  can  be  urged  in  favor  of 
the  peaceful  adjustment  of  individual  disputes,  and  against  a  resort  to 
individual  violence,  can  be  urged  with  as  much  greater  force  in  favor  of  interna- 
tional arbitration,  and  against  war,  as  the  evils  of  war  exceed  in  every  respect  the 
evils  resulting  from  individual  combat.  Now,  then,  if  the  ends  of  justice  itself 
can  be  better  subserved  by  arbitration  than  by  war,  and  so  much  evil  be  pre- 
vented, and  so  much  good  done,  what  plea  remains  for  war? 

Your  petitioners  yet  further  pray,  that  your  honorable  body  propose  to  the 
various  governments  of  the  world,  to  appoint  suitable  persons  as  delegates,  to 
assemble  in  congress  or  convention  with  delegates  from  the  United  States,  for 
the  purpose  of  preparing  a  code  of  international  law,  obligatory  on  such  nations 
as  may  subsequently  adopt  it,  and  of  acting  as  a  board  of  arbitration,  or  a 
court  of  equity  and  honor,  in  cases  of  dispute  between  nations  which  may  from 
time  to  time  be  submitted  to  their  consideration. 

The  present  law  of  nations,  so  called,  is  in  a  very  unsettled  condition.  Many 
of  its  principles  are  matters  of  dispute,  the  writers  on  international  law  dis- 
agreeing among  themselves.  Nor  have  they  any  oflBcial  authority,  even  did  they 
agree.  Neither  is  it  competent  for  any  one  government  to  regulate  the  matter. 
Hence,  an  international  tribunal  is  the  only  resource  that  remains,  to  set  these 


152  APPENDIX 

things  in  order,  and  to  furnish  nations  with  a  suitable  code  of  international 
law.  We  say  international  law,  because  we  do  not  propose  that  the  contemplated 
tribunal  shall  interfere  with  the  internal  concerns  of  nations.  We  only  say,  that 
some  common  tribunal  is  necessary,  to  lay  down  general  and  definite  rules  for 
the  observance  of  nations  in  their  intercourse  with  one  another.  Should  these 
rules  contain  any  thing  objectionable,  any  nation  could  refuse  to  adopt  that 
objectionable  part.  This  conservative  principle  would  be  a  sufficient  guard  against 
encroachment  on  national  rights,  and  would  tend  to  the  production  of  an 
equitable  code  on  the  part  of  the  tribunal.  Should  some  nations  eventually 
refuse  to  ratify  it,  this  would  not  render  it  abortive;  for  those  nations  that  would 
ratify  it  could  make  it  their  rule  in  their  intercourse  with  one  another,  leaving 
things  as  they  now  are  in  relation  to  the  non-concurring  powers,  till  they 
might  see  fit  to  adopt  it. 

If  it  is  indispensable  to  society,  that  civil  law  be  expressed  in  the  form  of 
a  code,  how  great  the  necessity  of  having  an  international  code.  "  The  law 
*  181  of  nations,"  says  Vattel,  "  is  as  much  above  the  civil  *  law  in  its  im- 
portance, as  the  proceedings  of  nations  and  sovereigns  surpass  in  their 
consequences  those  of  private  persons."  How  plain,  how  explicit,  then,  oug^t 
the 'law  of  nations  to  be!  How  guarded  at  every  point!  How  fixed  and 
acknowledged  its  principles!  And  yet,  strange  to  say,  this  law,  all-important  as 
it  is,  has  never,  as  yet,  so  much  as  been  put  into  the  form  of  a  code,  and  many 
of  its  principles  themselves  remain  matters  of  dispute,  and  have  been  the  fre- 
quent  occasion  of  war! 

That  a  nation,  under  the  existing  state  of  things,  has  sometimes  acted  in 
opposition  to  the  general  sentiment,  and  disregarded  rules  which  others  have 
thought  proper  to  observe,  is  so  far  from  being  an  argument  against  embodying 
international  law  in  a  code,  that  it  is  the  very  reverse.  A  disputed  principle 
of  international  law  is  not  an  established  part  of  it;  hence  the  necessity  of 
having  its  principles  settled,  and  the  admitted  law  of  nations  explicitly  expressed 
and  recognized.  But  as  the  matter  now  stands,  any  nation  may  disregard  what 
others  choose  to  consider  the  law  of  nations.  For,  under  what  obligation  is  an 
independent  nation  to  regard  the  opinions  of  unauthorized  writers  on  the  duties 
of  nations,  or  to  make  the  practice  of  other  nations  an  example  for  itself? 

But  do  your  memorialists,  in  proposing  the  formation  of  a  code  of  interna- 
tional  law,  necessarily  involve  the  idea  of  innovation  upon  the  established  usages 
and  the  acknowledged  principles  of  nations?  By  no  means.  The  present  law 
of  nations  could  be  thrown  into  the  form  of  a  code,  without  a  single  altera- 
tion; and  that  code,  duly  recognized  by  the  nations,  would  be  binding.  Here 
would  be  a  definite  and  certain  rule;  and  even  this  would  be  a  desideratum.  But 
your  memorialists  would  have,  if  practicable,  some  improvement  made  in  its 
principles.  They  would  at  least  have  an  attempt  made  to  improve  them.  They 
would  have  suitable  delegates  from  the  various  nations  convene,  and  discuss 
and  investigate  principles,  and  see  if  they  could  not  agree  upon  some  improve- 
ment; and  if  they  could  not  do  this,  then  let  them  explicitly  state  the  principles 
on  which  they  might  agree,  and  this  would  form  a  definite  code.     Some  who 


APPENDIX  153 

have  no  confidence  in  the  utility  of  a  code  of  the  kind,  admit  that  "it  could 
scarcely  do  any  harm."  Inasmuch,  therefore,  as  a  trial  of  the  experiment  could 
safely  be  made,  why  should  it  not  be  done,  and  thus  afford  the  opportunity  of 
bringing  its  supposed  advantages  to  the  test?  And  the  more  especially  so, 
■when,  as  they  admit,  "  the  authority  of  law,  once  established  and  acknowledged 
among  men,  is  second  only  to  that  of  religion."  Certainly,  if  this  is  so,  in- 
calculable good  would  result  from  a  wise  code  of  international  law,  enacted  by 

an  authorized  tribunal,  and  ratified  by  the  nations  themselves. 
*  182  *  The  propriety  of  the  principle  of  international  arbitration  being  ad- 
mitted, your  memorialists  have  only  to  show,  that  the  mode  of  arbitration 
which  they  propose  is  the  preferable  one.  And  they  are  at  a  loss  to  perceive 
how  any  one,  after  due  consideration,  can  fail  to  see,  that  a  council  composed  of 
the  statesmen,  the  sages,  the  philanthropists,  the  master-minds  of  earth,  having 
nought  to  divide  their  attention,  and  acting  in  accordance  with  a  well-digested 
code,  would  be  as  much  superior  to  a  temporary,  individual  arbitrator,  looking 
uncounteracted  to  his  own  interest,  burthened  with  the  affairs  of  state,  and  hav- 
ing to  form  a  decision  under  the  disadvantage  of  \msettled  principles  of  interna- 
tional law,  as  can  well  be  conceived. 

The  establishment  of  a  system  of  international  arbitration,  and  of  a  Congress 
of  Nations,  as  proposed  by  your  memorialists,  would  likewise  have  great  advan- 
tages over  mere  temporary  arbitration  in  other  respects.  Let  it  be  the  under- 
standing, that  nations  are  uniformly  to  refer  their  disputes,  and  let  there  be 
a  tribunal  established  to  which  to  refer  them,  and  the  various  powers  would  then 
feel  safe  in  making  a  great  reduction  of  their  naval  and  military  forces,  and 
arbitration  would  be  resorted  to  without  waiting  for  war  to  commence.  Whereas, 
without  any  such  system  and  organization,  arbitration  being  only  occasional, 
it  is  seldom  resorted  to  till  after  the  commencement  of  hostilities,  and  then  but 
occasionally,  just  as  chance  or  caprice  may  happen  to  direct.  Under  such  circum- 
stances, peace  cannot  be  insured,  governments  will  not  feel  safe  in  reducing  their 
forces,  and  thus  will  the  war-system  continue.  Who,  then,  can  fail  to  give 
the  preference  to  the  mode  of  arbitration  proposed  by  your  memorialists  7 

Some  who  object  to  such  a  board  of  arbitrators  say,  that  the  probability  is, 
that  its  decrees  "  would  be  merely  nugatory."  But  why  nugatory  ?  In  cases  of 
ordinary  arbitration,  decisions  in  general  are  not  nugatory,  though  no  compulsion 
is  used.  Why,  then,  would  the  decisions  of  the  contemplated  tribunal  be  nugatory? 
Should  this,  however,  be  the  result,  no  harm  would  be  done,  to  say  the  least. 
That  something,  nay,  that  much,  would  be  accomplished,  is  evident  from  the 
consideration,  that  "  judges  not  only  pass  judgment  in  particular  cases,  but  shape 
the  opinions  of  mankind  in  analogous  ones ;  "  and  that  "  those  opinions  are  the 
basis  of  all  government  and  legislation." 

But  then  it  is  feared,  that  if  it  did  have  any  influence,  that  influence  would 
be  "perverted  to  the  worst  ends."  Your  memorialists  are  at  a  loss  to  perceive 
how  this  would  be  possible.  The  tribunal  under  consideration  would  only  be 
called  upon  to  decide  cases  of  external  dispute  between  nations,  not  those  involv- 
ing principles  of  government,  or  any  vital  principles  whatever;  in  short,  nothing 


154  APPENDIX 

that  would  be  calculated  to  call  into  exercise  the  monarchical  or  the  repub- 

*  183   lican  sympathies  of  any  *  of  its  members — nothing  that  a  monarchy  and  a 

democracy  would  hesitate  to  submit  to  the  arbitration  of  a  crowned  head 
of  a  kingdom,  or  an  uncrowned  head  of  a  republic.  VVho  dreams  of  submitting 
to  arbitration,  whether  a  nation  shall  have  a  monarchical  or  a  republican  form 
of  government,  or  surrender  its  independence,  or  be  interfered  with  in  any  manner 
whatever,  where  others  are  not  concerned?  Certainly,  not  your  memorialists! 
They  merely  propose,  that  such  points  as  are  proper  subjects  for  international 
arbitration,  be  referred  to  a  tribunal  of  the  kind  already  designated,  instead  of 
a  temporary,  individual  arbitrator,  or  the  sword.  Where  the  danger  in  this?  the 
more  especially,  as  the  parties  would  only  be  bound  in  honor  to  regard  decisions 
manifestly  just.  This  provision  would  tend  to  the  production  of  righteous  de- 
cisions on  the  part  of  the  tribunal,  inasmuch  as  unrighteous  ones,  under  such 
circumstances,  would  effect  nothing  but  the  disgrace  of  that  body  itself.  With 
far  greater  propriety,  therefore,  might  the  plea  of  danger  be  made,  in  submitting 
the  disputes  of  individuals  to  courts  of  justice,  whereby  they  are  compelled  to 
regard  decisions,  than  in  this  case  of  nations.  The  decisions  of  the  proposed 
tribunal  would  evidently  have  all  the  efficacy  they  ought  to  have,  and  no  more. 
They  would  have  only  a  moral  influence,  and  that  just  in  proportion  to  their 
rectitude.  Thus,  while  national  independence  would  remain  inviolate,  the  ful- 
filment of  national  ohligation  would  be  secured. 

Your  memorialists  are  not  a  little  surprised,  that  the  project  of  Henry  IV 
should  be  seriously  compared  with  the  plan  by  them  recommended,  and  be  pro- 
nounced far  superior  in  point  of  practical  wisdom.  Whether  a  scheme  to  revolution- 
ize all  Christendom;  to  subjugate  and  partition  the  dominant  power  of  the  day; 
to  change  the  boundaries  of  states,  and  apply  to  them  the  leveling  principle  of 
agrarianism;  thereby  interfering  with  the  sovereignty  and  other  primary  rights 
of  nations,  and  introducing  innovations  and  changes  without  number;  is  more 
evincive  of  practical  wisdom,  than  a  proposition  to  draw  out  the  law  of  nations 
into  the  form  of  a  code,  and  to  reduce  the  present  practice  of  nations  with  regard 
to  arbitration  to  an  orderly  system,  as  proposed  by  your  memorialists,  is  for 
your  honorable  body  to  decide. 

Nor  less  are  your  memorialists  surprised,  that  it  should  be  asserted,  that  the 
famous  Amphictyonic  Council  "  had  no  effect  whatever  in  healing  the  dissensions 
of  the  Grecian  commonwealths."  In  relation  to  this  Council,  Rees  says,  "  Their 
determinations  were  received  with  the  greatest  veneration,  and  were  even  held 
sacred  and  inviolable."  Eollin  says,  "  The  authority  of  the  Amphictyons  had 
always  been  of  great  weight  in  Greece ;  but  it  began  to  decline  exceedingly,  from 
the  moment  they  condescended  to  admit  Philip  of  Macedon  into  their  body." 
Just    as    your    memorialists    would    have    it.    A    case    more    to    their 

*  184    *  purpose  could  not  be   conceived.     The  decisions  of  that  Council  were 

efficacious  exactly  in  proportion  to  their  equity;  and  they  lost  their  influ- 
ence when  the  Macedonian  began  to  pervert  it. 

The  assertion,  that  the  Germanic  Diet  accomplished  nothing  for  the  paciflcation 
of   the   states   of   Germany,   is   equally   at  variance   with   history.     For   three 


APPENDIX  155 

hundred  years,  the  German  empire  had  been  the  theatre  of  barbarism  and  anarchy; 
when  Maximilian  I  accomplished  what  his  predecessors  had  so  long  attempted  in 
vain.  "  In  1495,"  says  the  Encyclopaedia  Americana,  "  he  had  put  an  end  to  the 
internal  troubles  and  violence,  by  the  perpetual  peace  of  the  empire,  decreed  by 
the  Diet  of  Worms." 

Your  memorialists  would  here  bring  into  view  the  auspicious  results  emanat- 
ing from  the  system  of  arbitration  adopted  by  the  Helvetic  Union.  "  The  Swiss," 
says  Vattel,  "  have  had  the  precaution,  in  all  their  alliances  among  themselves, 
and  even  in  those  they  have  contracted  with  the  neighboring  powers,  to  agree 
beforehand  on  the  manner  in  which  their  disputes  were  to  be  submitted  to 
arbitrators,  in  case  they  could  not  adjust  them  in  an  amicable  manner.  This  wise 
precaution  has  not  a  little  contributed  to  maintain  the  Helvetic  republic  in  that 
flourishing  state  which  secures  its  liberty,  and  renders  it  respectable  throughout 
Europe."  The  same  writer,  in  allusion  to  international  arbitration,  &c.,  says, 
"  In  order  to  put  in  practice  any  of  these  methods,  it  is  necessary  to  speak  with 
each  other,  and  to  confer  together.  Conferences  and  congresses  are  then  a  way  of 
reconciliation  which  the  law  of  nature  recommends  to  nations,  as  proper  to  put  an 
amicable  period  to  their  diiferences."  Thus  is  the  idea  of  a  Congress  of  Nations 
sanctioned  by  the  law  of  nations.  Not  only  so:  the  practice  of  nations  sanctions 
it.  From  1644,  to  1814,  there  were  more  than  thirty  convocations  of  temporary 
Congresses  of  Nations,  embracing  various  states  of  Europe.  "  Wars  have  been 
terminated  by  them;  conflicting  jurisdictions  have  been  settled;  boundaries  have 
been  ascertained ;  commercial  conventions  have  been  formed ;  and,  in  various  ways, 
the  interests  of  friendly  intercourse  have  been  promoted."  Your  memorialists, 
therefore,  in  proposing  the  establishment  of  a  Congress  of  Nations,  are  far  from 
acting  the  part  of  visionary  innovators;  they  merely  propose  an  improvement  of 
a  present  international  regulation.  They  propose,  that,  instead  of  temporary 
congresses,  convened  after  war  has  done  its  bloody  work,  there  be  a  permanent 
Congress  to  prevent  war — a  body  of  sages  and  philanthropists  always  ready,  to 
whom  to  refer  disputes  before  war,  rather  than  after  it.  This  is  the  sum  of  the 
whole  matter.    And  what  is  there  visionary  or  impracticable  in  it?    What  is  there 

in  it  that  is  not  decidedly  better  than  the  present  state  of  things?  This 
*  185    improvement  in  international  jurisprudence,  this  *  advance  upon  preceding 

ages,  is  due  from  this  very  generation  to  the  enlightened  period  in  which 
we  live.  Your  memorialists  can  but  think,  that  the  venerable  Franklin  had  some 
such  plan  in  view  when  he  said,  "  We  daily  make  great  improvements  in  natural, 
there  is  one  I  wish  to  see  in  moral,  philosophy;  the  discovery  of  a  plan  that  would 
induce  and  oblige  nations  to  settle  their  disputes  without  first  cutting  one  an- 
other's throats."  Something  of  the  kind  the  illustrious  Jefferson  seems  likewise 
to  have  had  in  view,  when,  in  speaking  of  the  ineflBciency  of  war  in  redressing 
wrong,  and  of  its  multiplying,  instead  of  indemnifying,  losses,  he  exclaims, "  These 
truths  are  palpable,  and  must,  in  the  progress  of  time,  have  their  influence  on  the 
minds  and  conduct  of  nations!  "  And  in  authorizing  his  name  to  be  registered 
among  the  names  of  the  members  of  the  Massachusetts  Peace  Society,  he  gave  still 
stronger  testimony  in  favor  of  pacific  principles  and  measures. 


156  APPENDIX 

Before  coming  to  a  close,  your  memorialists  would  introduce  to  the  notice 
of  your  honorable  body  what  will  no  doubt,  ere-long,  be  presented  in  an  official 
form;  relating  as  it  does,  directly  to  the  subject  now  under  consideration,  and 
having  a  most  important  bearing  on  it. 

The  Legislature  of  the  noble  and  enlightened  State  of  Massachusetts  have 
recently  adopted  a  report,  and  sundry  resolutions  of  a  committee  of  that  body, 
by  a  unanimous  vote  in  the  House,  and  with  only  five  dissenting  votes  in  the 
Senate,  and  consequently  without  distinction  of  sect  or  party,  in  which  they 
entirely  coincide  with  your  memorialists  in  their  views. 

[As  this  part  of  the  memorial,  consisting  of  extracts  from  the  abovementioned 
report,  and  the  resolutions  appended  to  it,  has  appeared  in  a  previous  article,  it 
is  unnecessary  to  repeat  it.] 

Thus,  not  only  your  memorialists,  but  virtually  whole  States,  already  call  on 
your  honorable  body  to  adopt  the  system  of  pacification  designated  in  this  memo- 
rial. Nay,  your  memorialists  doubt  not,  that  could  the  universal  sentiment  be 
ascertained,  nine-tenths  of  the  hiunan  race  would  be  found  to  accord  with  these 
views.  Your  memorialists,  therefore,  present  this  document  to  your  honorable 
body,  as  the  representation  of  the  views  and  wishes  of  their  race,  in  regard  to 
this  great  subject;  and  in  the  name  of  human  nature  they  implore  you  to  grant 
these  requests. 

Your  memorialists  fear  they  have  already  trespassed  on  the  patience  of  your 
honorable  body,  by  their  very  extended  remarks.  They  trust,  however,  that  the 
immense  importance  of  the  subject  will  serve  as  a  sufficient  excuse  for  the  great 
length  of  this  memorial.  And  they  only  further  hope,  that  your  honorable  body 
will  give  it  attention  according  to  that  importance.  Should  this  be  the  case, 
they  are  under  no  apprehensions  with  regard  to  the  result.  And  your  memorial- 
ists, aa  in  duty  bound,  will  ever  pray. 


No.  11. 

•  186  •  Third  Petition  of  the  A-merican  Peace  Society. 

To  the  Honorable  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States 

of  America,  in  Ck>ngre8s  assembled,  1839-40. 

The  undersigned,  President  and  Executive  Ck>mmittee  of  the  American  Peace 
Society,  by  the  authority,  and  in  behalf  of  that  Society,  present  the  following 
petition : 

Your  petitioners,  being  more  persuaded  than  ever,  that  the  frequency  of  war 
may  be  lessened,  its  sufl'erings  abated,  and  the  custom  of  war  finally  banished 
from  the  community  of  free  and  enlightened  nations,  and  a  more  equitable,  safe 
and  cheap  method  for  settling  international  disputes  substituted  in  its  place, 
would  once  more  call  the  attention  of  your  honorable  bodies  to  that  most  impor- 
tant subject, — a  Congress  of  Nations.    They  have  nothing  to  add  to  the  unan- 


APPENDIX  157 

swerable  arguments  of  former  petitions  on  this  subject,  and  they  lament  that 
the  short  duration  of  the  last  session  of  Congress  prevented  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Affairs,  to  whom  their  own,  and  many  other  petitions  on  the  subject 
were  referred,  from  making  a  report  on  the  answer  of  your  petitioners,  and 
others  from  different  parts  of  the  Union,  to  the  objections  to  this  great  and 
benevolent  enterprise,  which  were  brought  against  it  by  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  preceding  session  of  Congress.  The  Committee 
were  probably  so  much  occupied  with  the  many  important  topics  brought  before 
them  during  the  short  session  of  Congress,  that  they  had  not  time  thoroughly 
to  examine  the  subject.  If  they  had  examined  it,  they  probably  would  have  come 
to  the  same  result  with  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts,  who  two  years  ago 
almost  unanimously  recommended  the  subject  to  the  attention  of  Congress,  by  a 
report  and  resolves  sent  on  last  year  to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  which 
want  of  time  probably  prevented  him  from  laying  before  Congress. 

The  question  of  our  north-eastern  boundary  is  still  unsettled  and  is  likely  to 
remain  so  for  years  to  come;  and  may  bring  on  a  war  between  two  of  the  most 
enlightened  nations  in  the  world, — a  war,  which  so  far  from  settling  the  question, 
would  only  encumber  it  with  new  difficulties  to  be  settled  by  another  umpire, 
whose  decision  would  be  as  liable  to  be  rejected  as  the  last;  and  thus  it  may  con- 
tinue to  be  the  bone  of  contention  between  the  two  countries,  until  they  see  the 
futility  of  expecting  an  individual,  however  learned  and  discriminating,  to  settle 
a  question  which  may  require  the  united  wisdom  of  a  whole  bench  of  judges, 
long  used  to  weigh  conflicting  evidences  in  the  scales  of  justice;  and,  from 
*  187  their  exalted  situation,  elevated  above  all  national  and  *  political  feelings, 
able  not  only  to  give  a  right  decision,  but  to  make  that  decision  plain  and 
satisfactory  to  the  parties  concerned,  and  to  the  world  at  large.  The  opinion  has 
been  expressed  by  some  of  the  ex-governors  of  the  State  of  Maine,  that  had  such 
a  Court  of  Nations  as  that  which  we  contemplate  existed,  the  difficulties  of  our 
north-eastern  boundary  would  long  ago  have  been  settled  to  our  entire  satis- 
faction. 

The  plan  proposed  by  your  petitioners  is  two-fold.  One  part  consists  of  a 
Congress  of  Ambassadors  from  all  those  Christian  and  civilized  nations  who  may 
choose  to  be  represented  there,  for  the  purpose  of  settling  such  points  of  the  law 
of  nations,  as  they  may  be  able  to  agree  upon,  in  a  mutual  treaty  between  all 
the  powers  represented,  which,  like  any  other  treaty,  might  be  ratified  or  rejected 
by  the  nations  concerned.  The  other  part  is  the  organization,  by  that  Congress, 
of  a  Court  of  Nations  for  the  adjustment  of  such  cases  of  international  diffi- 
culties as  might  be  brought  before  it  by  the  mutual  consent  of  any  two  or  more 
conflicting  nations,  without  resort  to  arms.  This  is  the  outline  of  our  plan. 
The  details  may  be  filled  up  by  the  wisdom  of  the  present  and  succeeding  ages. 
The  whole  plan  may  be  adopted,  or  either  part  of  it;  for  one  is  not  necessarily 
dependent  on  the  other.  They  may  exist  separately,  or  both  together,  as  should 
be  thought  best.  But  the  two  great  objects  should  never  be  lost  sight  of,  viz., 
1st.  The  settlement  of  the  principles  of  international  law  by  compact  and  agree- 
ment after  mature  deliberation;   leaving  them  no  longer  to  be  decided  by  the 


158  APPENDIX 

conflicting  opinions  of  ttnanthorized  writers  on  the  law  of  nations.  2d.  Some  bet- 
ter method  than  the  sword,  or  occasional  arbitration,  for  the  settlement  of  the 
disputes  of  Christian  and  civilized  nations;  such  as  a  high  Court  composed  of 
the  most  celebrated  civilians  and  jurisconsults  of  the  countries  represented  in  a 
Congress  of  Nations.  The  plan  is  so  simple,  and  the  evils  to  be  remedied  so  great, 
that  the  only  dilBculty  seems  to  be  in  making  men  believe  that  so  great  a  cure 
can  be  performed  by  such  simple  means,  which,  after  all,  is  but  a  step  or  two 
in  the  increasing  practice  of  arbitrating  international  difficulties. 

This  subject  has  been  much  discussed  in  New  England  and  New  York;  and, 
where  best  imderstood,  it  is  moat  appreciated.  It  has  also  received  the  attention 
of  the  British  public,  and  has  been  agitated  on  the  continent  of  Europe.  Should 
the  government  of  these  United  States  invite  Great  Britain  and  France  to  join 
in  this  great  and  benevolent  enterprise,  and  these  three  powers  only  should 
commence  the  work,  most  of  the  other  powers  of  Europe  and  the  South  American 
republics  would  soon  follow;  and  a  new  era  would  dawn  on  the  world:  right  would 
take  the  place  of  might;  wars,  in  a  great  measure,  would  cease  in  Christendom; 

and  peace  and  happiness  would  generally  pervade  the  world. 
*  188  *  The  American  Peace  Society  is  not  alone  in  this  affair,  as  is  abundantly 
testified  by  the  numerous  petitions  presented  to  the  last  two  sessions  of 
Congress  on  this  subject,  not  only  by  peace  societies,  but  by  men  who  are  not 
members  of  any  peace  society,  but  who  desire  the  happiness  of  their  fellow- 
creatures,  and  the  honor  and  prosperity  of  their  country;  and  we  expect  that 
numerous  petitions  will  be  presented  to  Congress  at  their  present  session,  if  our 
fellow-citizens  have  not  become  discouraged  by  the  neglect  of  their  petitions  last 
winter;  for  almost  every  one  who  understands  the  subject,  readily  gives  his  assent 
to  it 

Deeply  impressed  with  these  views  of  the  subject,  your  petitioners  humbly 
pray  that  their  petition  may  be  committed  to  a  special  Committee,  with  directions 
to  examine  and  report  on  the  subject. 

WILLIAM  LADD,  President. 

J.  P.  Blanchabd,  John  Owkn,  "j 

Geo.  C.  Beckwith,      J.   W.   Pabkkb,  I  ^*««^*»*^ 

Edwabd  Notes,  Jambs   K.   Whipple,  I  C^o"*"*»"«'- 


No.  12. 

Form  of  a  Petition  written  and  circulated  by  the  Friends  of  Peace  in  different 

parts  of  the  country. 

To  the  Honorable  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States 

of  America,  in  Congress  assembled: 

The  undersigned,  citizens  of  [Portsmouth,  in  the  State  of  New  Hampshire,] 
respectfully  present  the  following  Memorial  and  Petition: 


APPENDIX  159 

It  is  a  growing  sentiment  among  men  of  all  classes  and  professions,  that  inter- 
national war  is  as  needless  as  it  is  confessed  to  be  ruinous  to  the  resources  and 
morals  of  a  people.  This  opinion  is  now  defended,  not,  as  formerly,  on  religious 
grounds  solely,  and  by  the  members  of  individual  sects  of  Christians,  but  on 
grounds  of  general  expediency  and  policy,  and  by  many  who  view  or  treat  the  sub- 
ject only  in  its  political  aspects.  But  with  this  progress  of  public  sentiment, 
recent  events  have  shown  us  that  the  causes  of  war  are  not  removed;  but  our 
country  was,  during  the  last  year,  brought  alarmingly  near  a  state  of  hostility 
with  the  very  power  with  which,  of  all  others,  a  common  parentage  and  language, 
and  the  closest  financial  and  commercial  relations,  invite  us  to  cultivate  a  pacific 

intercourse. 
•  189       *  The  most  fruitful  causes  of  war  flow  from  the  unsettled  state  of  inter- 
national law.     The  existence  of  international  law  is  recognized,  and  its 
requisitions  are  professedly  held  as  binding  by  all  the  civilized  governments  of 
Europe  and  America. 

International  law,  in  its  original  growth,  has  been  justly  compared  to  the 
common  law  of  England  and  of  most  of  these  United  States.  It  has  no  recog- 
nized code ;  but  is  the  creature  of  precedent,  and  individual  opinion  and  authority. 
It  is,  therefore,  like  the  common  law,  ever  in  the  process  of  creation.  Of  the 
latter,  it  has  been  said,  with  truth,  that  "  the  courts  make  it,  instead  of  being 
governed  by  it."  And  so  may  it  be  said  of  international  law,  that,  while  it  is 
ostensibly  the  basis  of  all  diplomatic  intercourse,  the  nations  make  it  by  every 
new  demand,  compromise  or  treaty.  A  system  of  law,  thus  perpetually  in  transitu, 
must,  of  necessity,  be  indefinite,  and  liable  to  opposing  constructions.  Moreover, 
there  must  necessarily  be,  both  within  nations  and  between  nations,  however 
strict  and  thorough  the  statuary  provisions,  a  common  law,  a  law  of  precedent 
and  authority,  perpetually  growing  up.  No  codification  can  be  so  complete  as  to 
cover  all  possible  cases,  and  to  cut  off  the  call  for  independent  precedents  and 
decisions. 

Yet  it  seems  to  your  petitioners  a  self-evident  proposition,  that  a  common 
law  may,  at  a  certain  stage  of  its  growth,  have  reached  such  a  degree  of  com- 
plexity, and  may  have  become  so  voluminous  or  miscellaneous  in  its  authorities, 
as  to  demand  codification,  and  also  that  it  may  become  established  (or  capable 
of  being  established  by  a  careful  comparison  of  precedents)  on  a  sufficient  range 
of  questions  and  subjects,  to  render  such  codification  of  the  greatest  value 
and  advantage.  To  codify  such  a  system  of  law,  is  not  to  arrest  it  in  its  progress 
towards  completeness,  but  to  facilitate  its  progress  by  writing  its  history. 

This  stage,  it  is  believed  by  many  eminent  jurists,  has  been  reached  by  the 
common  law,  so  called;  and  much  has  been  of  late  wisely  said  and  written  with 
regard  to  its  codification.  Already  in  the  State  of  Massachusetts  is  a  commission, 
composed  of  gentlemen  of  the  highest  legal  talents  and  attainments,  engaged, 
under  an  act  of  the  Legislature,  in  the  codification  of  the  common  law.  Nor  do 
we  deem  it  a  merely  fortuitous  coincidence,  but  the  result  of  analogous  views 
and  arguments,  that  the  Legislature  of  that  same  enlightened  State  should  have 
been,  so  far  as  we  are  informed,  the  first  legislative  body  in  the  world  to  recom- 


160  APPENDIX 

mend  by  rote  "  the  institution  of  a  Congress  of  Nations  for  the  purpose  of  framing 
a  code  of  international  law." 

Your  petitioners  believe  that  the  law  of  nations  is  capable  of  being  defi- 
nitely settled  on  many  points,  on  which  it  is  still  imsettled,  and  that 
*100  *  the  good  of  the  civilized  world  demands  its  early  establishment  and  codifi- 
cation, so  far  as  practicable.  We  reflect  with  alarm  on  the  admitted  fact, 
that  the  points  of  international  law,  on  which  opposing  views  led  to  our  last  war 
with  Great  Britain,  still  remain  unsettled,  and  may  involve  us  anew  in  hostilities 
with  any  future  belligerent  European  power.  We  believe  that  the  present  interval 
of  peace  and  amicable  relations  between  the  great  powers  of  Christendom  gen- 
erally, would  be  eminently  favorable  to  the  prospective  settlement  of  the  pos- 
sible grounds  of  future  discord  and  hostility.  We  cannot  but  think,  too,  that 
the  same  disposition,  which  has  led  the  principal  powers  of  Europe,  in  repeated 
recent  instances,  to  adjust,  by  amicable  negotiations,  or  by  arbitration,  dis- 
putes which,  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago,  would  have  inevitably  issued  in 
sanguinary  wars,  would  induce  them  to  accede  to  any  proposal,  emanating  from 
a  source  entitled  to  the  highest  regard  and  deference,  for  the  establishment  of  a 
code  of  international  law. 

It  is  mainly  in  this  view  that  we  petition  your  honorable  body  to  take  into 
mature  consideration  the  subject  of  a  "  Congress  of  Nations."  We  would  respect- 
fully submit  the  question,  whether  it  be  not  practicable  for  a  body  of  accredited 
delegates  from  the  civilized  governments  of  Europe  and  America  to  be  convened 
for  the  establishment  of  certain  leading  points  of  international  rights,  usage 
and  intercourse.  In  proposing  such  a  measure,  and  urging  its  practicability,  we 
do  not  propose  and  urge  an  unprecedented  measure,  or  one  which  requires  any 
ujiwonted  form  of  negotiation,  in  order  for  it  to  be  carried  into  effect.  We  are, 
perhaps,  unfortunate,  in  having  given  to  this,  our  favorite  measure,  a  new  name. 
There  have  often  been  three  or  more  parties  to  an  international  treaty;  and 
such  treaties  have  always  been  negotiated  by  a  "  Congress  of  Nations,"  that  is, 
by  a  convention  composed  of  the  accredited  representatives  of  the  several  high 
contracting  powers.  Moreover,  individual  points  of  international  law  constitute 
a  part  or  the  whole  of  the  subject  matter  of  every  treaty  between  two  or  more 
nations;  and  by  every  treaty,  such  points  are  settled  for  a  season  between  the 
parties  to  the  treaty.  The  measure,  in  behalf  of  which  we  yet  hope  to  see  the 
influence  of  our  government  exerted,  is  the  negotiation  of  a  treaty,  to  which 
there  shall  be  as  many  parties  as  there  are  civilized  and  Christian  governments, 
and  which  shall  embrace  all  the  points  of  international  law  which  accumulated 
precedent  and  authority  furnish  the  means  of  establishing  to  general  satisfaction. 
We  look  forward  to  the  establishment  of  a  system  or  law  of  arbitration  for 
the  settlement  of  future  international  disputes,  as  an  ulterior  result  of 
•  191  the  convening  of  such  a  "  Congress  of  Nations,"  as  would  be  •  held  for  the 
purpose  aforesaid.  Wliat  that  system  or  mode  of  adjustment  would 
probably  be — whether  by  the  renewal  from  time  to  time  with  judicial  functions 
of  the  Congress  originally  convened  for  legislative  purposes  (to  which  we  are 
well  aware  that  there  are  sound  and  weighty  objections),  or  by  defining,  by 


APPENDIX  161 

general  treaty,  the  rights,  powers  and  duties  of  umpires  of  the  respective  parties 
to  an  arbitration — ^we  do  not  presume  to  say.  When  we  urge  upon  our  legislators 
and  others  the  project  of  a  Congress  of  Nations,  we  include  this  object  of  the 
settlement  of  national  disputes  with  the  more  definite  one  of  the  establishment 
of  a  code  of  international  law;  because  the  latter  object  is  of  course  only 
auxiliary  to  the  former,  and  because  the  latter  must  needs  follow  from  any 
train  of  measures  designed  to  carry  the  former  into  eflfect. 

In  petitioning  your  honorable  body  to  take  this  subject  into  consideration,  we 
are  by  no  means  unaware  of  the  respectful  attention  paid  by  the  last  Congress 
to  similar  petitions,  or  insensible  to  the  merits  of  the  able  and  candid  report 
presented  to  the  House  of  Representatives  June  13,  1838,  by  Mr.  Legare,  from 
the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs.  We  are  encouraged  still  to  petition  by  the 
very  fact,  that  former  petitions  have  not  been  presented  in  vain,  but  have  called 
great  and  good  minds  into  action  upon  a  subject  of  so  vital  an  interest. 

We  respectfully  hope  that  ours  and  similar  petitions  may  be  the  means 
of  drawing  out  other  minds  on  the  same  field  of  inquiry  and  argument;  and 
ftlso  of  chronicling  on  the  records  of  Congress  the  progress,  which  we  are  well 
assured  that  the  general  mind  of  the  American  people  has  made  since  the  presenta* 
tion  of  the  report  just  referred  to,  and  which  therefore  ito  collective  wisdom 
must  indicate. 


No.  18. 

Petition  to  Parliament  by  the  London  Peace  Society. 

The  humble  Petition  of  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Society  for  the 
Promotion  of  Permanent  and  Universal  Peace, 

Showeth, — That  a  Society  for  the  promotion  of  Permanent  and  Universal 
Peace  was  formed  in  London,  in  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  sixteen. 
That  this  Society  has  attempted  to  effect  this  end,  by  diffusing  information  on  the 
subject,  showing  that  the  resort  to  war,  to  settle  questions  of  national  profit  and 
honor,  is  a  practice  derived  from  the  barbarism  of  former  ages;  inconsistent 
•  192  with  the  *  enlightened  philanthropy  of  the  present  times ;  altogether 
contrary  to  the  benign  principles  of  Christianity;  productive  of  extensive 
destruction  of  property,  liberty,  and  human  life,  and  of  many  other  great  miseries 
and  corruptions:  and  usually  inefficient  for  the  purposes  for  which  it  is  waged; 
and  hence,  that  it  is  incumbent  on  all  civilized,  especially  on  all  Christian  com- 
munities, to  devise  measures  for  its  complete  suppression. 

Your  petitioners  further  show,  that  societies  have  been  formed  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  France,  and  in  Switzerland,  for  the  same  purpose,  which 
aim  at  this  most  desirable  consummation,  by  precisely  the  same  measures. 

Your  petitioners  take  this  opportunity  to  state,  that  they  have  been  strongly 
urged,  by  the  American  Peace  Society,  in  consequence  of  the  dispute  now  exist- 


162  APPENDIX 

ing,  in  reference  to  the  boundary  line  between  the  United  States  and  the  British 
territories,  to  unite  with  them  in  endeavoring  to  allay  all  ang^y  passions  and 
excited  feelings,  on  a  subject  which  ought  to  be  decided  by  sound  judgment  and 
calm  deliberation:  and  to  use  all  constitutional  means  to  prevent  the  outbreak- 
ing of  war  between  two  countries,  bound  together  by  so  many  ties  of  principle, 
affection,  and  interest. 

Under  a  serious  apprehension  of  the  danger  of  a  catastrophe  so  awful,  your 
petitioners  earnestly  invite  the  calm  consideration  of  your  honorable  House, 
to  the  principles  of  the  acknowledged  religion  of  this  country,  and  to  those 
petitions  in  the  liturgy  of  the  Established  Church  of  this  nation,  which  pray  for 
the  preservation  of  Peace;  and  they  implore  your  honorable  House  to  use  all 
efforts  which  your  wisdom  may  devise,  to  prevent  a  calamity  so  gp-eatly  to  be 
deprecated,  as  a  war  between  two  nations  of  one  blood,  of  one  language,  and  of 
one  religion. 

Your  petitioners  beg  leave  to  express  their  firm  conviction,  that  all  war  is 
opposed  to  the  spirit  and  precepts  of  Christianity,  and  is  contrary  to  the  true 
interests  of  nations;  and  that  the  time  is  come  for  the  adoption  of  a  more 
equitable  and  Christian  method  of  settling  international  disputes. 

Your  petitioners  therefore  humbly  pray  your  honorable  House  to  devise  such 
nfeasures  as  in  its  wisdom  may  seem  best  adapted,  to  induce  all  governments  to 
unite  in  forming  a  great  coimcil,  for  the  purpose  of  settling  the  principles  of 
international  law  and  of  organizing  a  High  Court  of  Appeal,  in  which  all 
national  disputes  may  be  adjusted. 

And  your  petitioners  will  ever  pray. 


I 

Date  Due 

f 

Library  Burca 

J  Cat,  No.  1137 

